1
eii7
CHINESE PORCELAINS
FROM THE
ARDEBIL SHRINE
By
JOHN ALEXANDER POPE
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
FREER GALLERY OF ART
WASHINGTON
1956
Wuhinfton, 9.
SMITHSONIAN PUBLICATION 4231
THE LORD BALTIMORE PRESS, INC.
BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A.
To
ANNEMARIE
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE ix
CHRONOLOGICAL DATA xv
PART I— INTRODUCTION
HISTORY 3
Ardebil and the Rise of the Safavid Dynasty 3
Shah 'Abbas the Great and the Shrine of Sheikh Safi 5
The Dedication of the Porcelains 8
Three Centuries of Rumor 11
ROUTES FROM CHINA TO IRAN 19
MARGINALIA ON THE STUDY OF MING PORCELAIN 27
The Evaluation of Chinese Sources 27
"Imperial" Wares 33
The Beginnings of Blue-and-White in China 38
PART II— THE ARDEBIL PORCELAINS
THE COLLECTION TODAY 49
THE NON-CHINESE MARKS 51
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 59
Shape 60
Decoration 65
Supporting Evidence 69
Hama 69
Kharakhoto 72
Hung-wu 77
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY 83
Shape 85
Decoration 89
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE MID-FIFTEENTH CENTURY: "INTERREGNUM" 101
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 107
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 121
THE WHITE WARES 143
THE POLYCHROME WARES 149
THE MONOCHROME WARES 151
THE CELADONS 153
APPENDIX: STATISTICAL NOTES ON THE COLLECTION 159
BIBLIOGRAPHY 163
PLATES following 172
INDEX 173
V
THE ILLUSTRATIONS
In addition to the 268 negatives taken by Elizabeth S. Ettinghausen, and further
acknowledged in the preface, credit is due the following for photographs of porcelains
in the Ardebil Collection:
Archaeological Museum, Tehran:
PI. 40, no. 29.35; PI. 55, no. 29.455; PI. 69, nos. 29.472, 29.459; PI. 79, nos.
29.515, 29.520; PI. 80, no. 29.364 (base) ; PI. 82, no. 29.140; PI. 88, no. 29.387
(inside); PI. 89, nos. 29.314, 29.265; PI. 90, no. 29.150; PI. 91, nos. 29.147,
29.148; PI. 94, no. 29.207; PI. 96, nos. 29.481, 29.367; PI. 97, no. 29.445; PI.
114, no. 29.772 *; PI. 116, nos. 29.769*, 29.761; PI. 117, nos. 29.763, 29.764*;
PI. 118, no. 29.758 (1 *);P1. 119, no. 29.747( base).
Richard Ettinghausen:
PI. 40, no. 29.62; PI. 44, no. 29.310 (base); PI. 70, nos. 29.437, 29.353; PI. 78,
no. 29.132; PI. 80, no. 29.364 (3 views); PI. 81, no. 29.262; PL 86, no. 29.456;
PI. 87, no. 29.377; PI. 90, no. 29.279; PI. 108, no. 29.444; PI. 109, no. 29.473;
PI. 113, no. 29.718; PI. 120, the cat; PI. 125, no. 29.655; PI. 129, no. 29.648
(base).
Richard N. Frye:
PI. 77, no. 29.346.
John A. Pope:
PI. 6, marks A-I and K; PI. 48, no. 29.333 (black and white print made from a
color transparency); PI. 54, Isfahan; PI. 74, Isfahan (2 views); PI. 99, nos.
29.423, 29.424; PI. 109, no. 29.484.
Objects not in the Ardebil Collection are credited in the respective descriptions
except for the following, which were photographed at the Freer Gallery of Art:
PI. 110, duplicate of 29.678; PI. 131, Fostat shards; PI. 137, Seljuk bronze, dish
with ch'i-lin, late fifteenth-century shard; PI. 138, albarello.
All sketches are by the author.
* These prints made by the Archaeological Museum were kindly lent for publication here by
the Oriental Ceramic Society, London.
vii
NUMERICAL LIST OF THE ARDEBIL PORCELAINS
ILLUSTRATED IN THIS VOLUME
Object
Plate
Object
Plate
Object
29.1
30
29.132
78
29.332
29.3
31
29.136
72
29.333
29.6
31
29.137
71
29.334
29.21
31
29.139
72
29.335
29.33
31
29.140
82
29.336
29.35
40
29.142
73
29.338
29.37
45
29.143
57
29.340
29.38
7
29.147
91
29.341
29.39
12
29.148
91
29.342
29.40
8
29.149
59
29.343
29.41
8
29.150
90
29.344
29.42
9-10
29.154
102
29.345
29.43
10-11
29.164
103
29.346
29.44
18
29.171
104
29.347
29.45
16
29.172
100
29.348
29.46
17
29.174
104
29.349
29.47
15
29.175
104
29.353
29.48
21
29.178
104
29.355
29.49
19-20
29.203
101
29.362
29.52
38
29.205
93
29.364
29.55
37
29.207
94
29.367
29.58
38
29.208
94
29.369
29.60
39
29.231
92
29.371
29.61
40
29.233
92
29.375
29.62
40
29.239
92
29.376
29.63
41
29.242
92
29.377
29.64
32
29.262
81
29.378
29.65
32
29.264
100
29.380
29.68
32
29.265
89
29.382
29.75
33
29.271
29
29.386
29.83
33
29.272
29
29.387
29.88
34
29.274
29
29.388
29.92
34
58
29.389
29.98
34
29.279
90
29.390
29.101
35
29.283
108
29.392
29.106
35
29.284
108
29.393
29.109
35
29.310
42, 44
29.394
29.113
36
29.311
43-44
29.397
29.117
36
29.312
42, 44
29.399
29.119
36
29.313
75-76
29.401
29.120
13
29.314
89
29.402
29.121
13
29.319
23
29.403
29.122
14
29.320
24
29.406
29.123
22
29.321
47
29.407
29.127
21
29.326
47
29.408
29.128
22
29.327
46
29.409
29.129
22
29.328
46
29.411
29.131
78
29.330
47
29.412
Plate
Object
Plate
Object
Plate
47
29.413
51
29.520
79
48
29.415
56
29.522
26
48
29.419
51
29.523
26
49
29.420
56
29.617
121
49
29.423
99
29.619
121
49
29.424
99
29.621
122
49
29.427
54
29.624
124
60
29.428
54
29.626
123
61
29.430
54
29.630
123
62
29.433
98
29.631
123
64
29.434
98
29.646
125
63
29.435
98
29.647
126
77
29.436
98
29.648
129
67
29.437
70
29.649
127
66
29.439
55
29.650
130
65
29.442
69
29.651
128
70
29.444 .
108
29.652
129
83-84
29.445
97
29.654
130
83-84
29.447
53
29.655
125
80
29.448
53
29.657
115
96
29.451
74
29.678
110
85
29.455
55
29.679
112
87
29.456
86
29.687
110
65
29.458
55
29.694
111
95
29.459
69
29.697
112
87
29.464
97
29.714
114
29.716
113
108
29.467
109
29.717
113
108
29.468
109
29.718
113
88
29.470
53
29.722
115
107
29.471
53
29.747
119
107
29.472
69
29.758
118
107
29.473
109
29.759
118
105
29.475
28
29.761
116
106
29.476
28
29.763
117
105
29.477
86
29.764
117
89
29.479
52
29.769
116
68
29.480
27
29.772
114
95
29.481
96
29.773
115
86
29.483
55
29.774
114
50
29.484
109
Unnumbered
25
29.485
55
cat
120
25
29.495
52
25
29.496
56
Isfahan:
51
29.510
27
Mei-p'ing
■ 26
51
29.512
79
Ewer
54
25
29.515
79
Dish
74
viii
PREFACE
"I have no intention to pre-engage the reader's approbation ... by a studied
preface; and think it sufficient to declare, that nothing will be found here, but what I
have seen with my own eyes, and have examined with the utmost attention and care.
I shall not enlarge on the errors [of earUer writers] lest I should be taxed with an in-
clination to recommend myself at their expense, and to set off this account ... by
decrying those of others. Persons of judgement and taste will know what to determine
concerning us, by comparing our several performances. ... I may Ukewise declare,
that I have been altogether industrious to afford the pubUc, and especially persons of
taste, as much satisfaction as is consistent with my small abihties. To which I may add
that I have made it an indispensable law to myself, not to deviate in any respect from
the truth, merely to give an ornamental air to this work, in which there are no facts
but what are related with the strictest veracity. It, however, is well known that when an
author presents a book to the pubHc, he exposes himself to the censure of such as take
pleasure in depreciating whatever is above their capabiUties."
Thus in part did CorneHs de Bruyn preface the monumental account of his
journey to the Near East which appeared in English in 1737.^ In his own picturesque
way he has said much that is in the mind of any author whose book is an account of
things seen; and to his engaging generaUties need be added only a few paragraphs
outhning the circumstances more immediately concerned with the conception and
birth of the present volume.
As for explanation, those happy souls who find absorbing interest in the history of
man and his works will need none. For them it is enough to know that over three
centuries ago a great collection of Chinese porcelains, part of which remains intact
today, was assembled on the shores of the Caspian Sea some 4,000 miles from where it
was made. That very fact raised questions that not only stimulated the broader
historical curiosities of all who knew it, but which seized upon the imaginations of a
whole group of scholars, collectors, and connoisseurs on three continents who had
long devoted themselves to the problems of reconstructing Chinese ceramic history.
The scanty notes and the handful of unsatisfactory photographs that had appeared
since the turn of the century served only to make the questions more urgent, for none
of them were prompted by anything but the most casual interest on the part of visitors
to Iran with other ends in view. No one, it seemed, who had any interest in Chinese
porcelain ever went to the Near East, and the rumors that found their way back were
varied and contradictory. It was a fabulous treasure, said one, innumerable
magnificent pieces remaining in a perfect state of preservation; or, contrariwise, it was
^ Travels into Muscovy, Persia, and part of the East Indies . . . , 2 vols., London 1737.
ix
X CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
a handful of late Ming export wares, mediocre to poor in quality, limited in scope, and
most of it badly damaged. While the latter view seemed to prevail, no one really knew;
and, worst of all, the questions remained unanswered. Why was it there? How did it
get there? And even more urgent, what did it consist of? What sort of Chinese porce-
lains reached Iran in the Safavid Dynasty? Did it all come at once, or over a long
period of time? How was it documented? What could it add to the knowledge of
ceramic history? The tantalizing bits of news that reached us not only failed to
answer these questions but seemed to make them all the more demanding. After 50
years and more of uncertainty, it was time to find out.
And so it was that on an auspicious day in the midsummer month of 1950 1 found
myself face to face at last with the legendary porcelain collection of Shah 'Abbas. Here
amid the disorganized mass of unwashed dishes lay possible answers to some of those
questions. At a glance it was clear that they would be numbered in the hundreds, that
there were both superb and ordinary pieces, that they represented some two and a
half centuries of production in China, and that many of them were in perfect condition.
But this was not enough, and it was even more apparent that the task of making a full
study in the Umited time at hand was enormous. Far-reaching decisions had to be
made before the scope of the material could be fully grasped, for there was Uttle chance
that once the precious month had run out it would be possible to see the collection
again; and it was all too evident that the work done then and there would be funda-
mental; it would form the basis of all future study no matter how many years might
intervene between the first-hand examination of the porcelains themselves and any
publication that might result.'"
Order was of the first importance. Before all else, the collection had to be washed
and sorted. Once clean, pieces of similar shapes were placed in separate groups,
numbered to provide some basis for reference, and then, within each group, arranged
as far as possible by period and by type of design. With the almost purely physical
labor of this first step completed, the question was how to proceed from there. Time
did not permit the leisurely contemplation that might have been desirable, nor did it
allow the making of complete written descriptions and photographs of every piece. On
the assumption that photographs could somehow be obtained later, and that verbal
descriptions, to be of any service, had to be made by him who was to use them, the
decision was made in their favor. Every piece was measured and described; and the
record thus embodied in a thick and well-worn notebook formed the basis of all later
work. From it lists of photographs were ordered, and on it are based the descriptions
in this book. Final details included the sketching of certain structural features, the
copying and recording of various marks, and the taking of a small selection of special
photographs. Then the time was up.
^''Letter from the Near East, HJAS, 13(1950): 558-564, is my preliminary report on this
survey of the collection.
PREFACE
xi
A year later an excellent set of almost 300 photographs came into being, thanks
to the kind help that will be duly acknowledged below; and the intervening years have
been spent in seeing and handling as much Ming porcelain as I could find, in the search
for documents relating to the various phases of the history of the collection, and in
conversations on all manner of related problems with scholars and connoisseurs on
both sides of the Atlantic. Great as was the satisfaction of spending a month handling
the Ardebil porcelains, these years of study have been by far the most rewarding part
of the project, and it would have been the greatest pleasure to let them go on indefi-
nitely. But the fine had to be drawn somewhere; the book had to be written.
By no means all the questions are answered, and many vexing problems remain to
be solved. As it stands, this volume deals with three aspects of the subject: (a) the
place of the Ardebil Shrine in Safavid history, the dedication of the porcelains by Shah
'Abbas the Great, the routes by which they may have reached Iran, and the later his-
tory of the sanctuary as recorded by European visitors; (b) comments on certain
fundamental problems relating to the study of Ming porcelain by way of establishing
the frame of mind in which I have approached the main part of the work; (c) the de-
scription and analysis of the collection as it illustrates the chronological development
of the manufacture and decoration of Chinese porcelain from about 1350 to 1610.
For that purpose the Ardebil Collection provides a body of material not rivaled
elsewhere in one place. The fact that it has a documented terminal date in A.D. 1611
means that there need be no worry about weeding out post-Ming wares; and the
second fact that about three-quarters of the 800 odd pieces are blue-and-white pro-
vides an opportunity to concentrate on the essential qualities of form and decoration
without distraction by other factors involved in the consideration of enamel colors and
monochrome glazes. It is on those basic matters that I have dwelt; and in so doing, in
looking intently for a long period of time at hundreds of pieces of porcelain manu-
factured at various times throughout two and a half centuries, one cannot help but
sense the existence of a large-scale pattern of development in which most of them are
bound to find their places. But simple as this sounds, it is by no means cut and dried.
Copying is one of the most deeply rooted traditions of Chinese art, and this, added to
the fact that several classes and quaUties of porcelains must have been manufactured
at the same time and in various places, means that anachronisms and geographical con-
fusions abound. So in spite of the great over-all evolutionary pattern into which most
of the pieces seem to fall, it is dangerous to be dogmatic about any individual piece.
It has been my purpose to try to communicate to the reader the larger outlines of this
pattern in terms of the pieces preserved at Ardebil; and for those that elude precise
classification, I have tried to suggest the most likely possibilities.
Much remains to be said; many historical, sinological, and stylistic problems call
for further investigation; but, fully aware of the shortcomings and lacunae in the pres-
ent text, I bring it reluctantly to an end. The rare opportunity of having been the first
xii CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
to study an unknown collection of this importance and scope imposes the responsibihty
of publishing, and this I now do. In making the acknowledgments that follow, I wish
to record my gratitude for the generous good will and valuable counsel of many col-
leagues who have contributed immeasurably to whatever merit this book may have;
the imperfections are my own.
It is hard to determine when and where this project really began. The study of
Chinese art has been my principal preoccupation for over 20 years, and for perhaps
three-quarters of that time ceramics in general and Ming porcelains in particular have
been of primary interest; so in a sense my work on the Ardebil Collection began long
before I had the opportunity of visiting Iran. To enumerate all those who have been
helpful in that long period would be impossible; and except for the mention of the two
men who first opened my eyes to the beauty and absorbing interest of Ming porcelain,
R. L. Hobson and George Eumorfopoulos, my acknowledgments are confined to those
friends whose help has in one way or another intimately affected this volume.
In Tehran the work was carried on with the blessing of Andre Godard, then
director of the Service of Antiquities of the Government of Iran, and the friendly co-
operation of the late Dr. Mehdi Bahrami, director of the Archaeological Museum of
Tehran where the collection is housed. Thanks are also due Dr. K. M. Mostafavi for
his continuing help, and Miss Barsin and all those members of the staff who gave so
generously of their time and effort. Our hosts in Tehran, Mr. and Mrs. Charlemagne
Edward Wells, not only gave us the freedom of their comfortable house but did every-
thing to make our visit pleasant; and in his official capacity as pubHc affairs officer of
the United States Embassy, Mr. Wells was helpful in many ways.
Lacking training and linguistic competence in the Near Eastern field I am particu-
larly grateful for the friendly cooperation of many scholars who have them. V. Minor-
sky, A. J. Arberry, and R. Levy of Cambridge University, D. S. Rice and R. M. Savory
of London University, K. H. Menges of Columbia University, and G. C. Miles of the
American Numismatic Society have been most helpful with epigraphic problems.
Thanks are also due R. N. Frye of Harvard University, J. Aubin of the Institute
Franco-Iranien in Tehran, Dr. Myron Bement Smith, chairman of the Committee for
Islamic Culture and director of its Islamic Archives, for help of various kinds; and for
the extended loan of her unpubHshed thesis which provided valuable references, I am
indebted to Harriet Harrison Merry.
The finest collections of Chinese porcelain in the Western world and the keenest
connoisseurship are concentrated in London; and I am deeply grateful to the private
collectors and museum officials of that city for friendly cooperation of many kinds.
For giving me frequent and complete access to their private collections or those of
which they are custodians and for many valuable suggestions and criticisms my warm
thanks are due Mrs. Alfred Clark, Mrs. Walter Sedgwick, Mrs. C. G. Seligmann, John
Ayers, Sir Percival and Lady David, Professor E. D. Edwards, Sir Harry Garner, Basil
PREFACE
xiii
Gray, Soame Jenyns, Arthur Lane, and W. W. Winkworth. Elsewhere in Europe, I
have benefited from the kind help of Daisy Lion-Goldschmidt, Andre Leth, Bo Gyl-
lensvard, and Jean-Pierre Dubosc.
Many American colleagues have been helpful, but none more so than Arthur W.
Hummel, retired chief of the Division of Orientalia in the Library of Congress, whose
wisdom and knowledge have placed in the hands of American scholars the greatest
Chinese library outside of China. He and his associates in the Chinese Section have
been models of patience and cooperation in finding and placing at my disposal the
treasures of that incomparable collection. I also wish particularly to thank my old
friend and fellow student Francis Woodman Cleaves of Harvard who has been most
generous in sharing his unsurpassed knowledge of Mongolian and Chinese and has
supplied me with much valuable information. Dr. Li Hui-lin, now of the Morris
Arboretum, has continued to be most helpful on botanical questions; Dr. Herbert
Friedmann and Herbert G. Deignan of the United States National Museum have
identified many of the birds; and Dr. Wilham M. Mann, director of the National Zoo-
logical Park, pointed out the several varieties of deer used in the decoration of blue-
and-white. The eagle eyes of Paul H. Oehser and Ruth B. MacManus of the
Editorial and Publications Division of the Smithsonian Institution have saved me from
many an embarrassing sHp. Further individual acknowledgments for help on special
problems will be found in the pertinent notes to the text.
In the Freer Gallery of Art nearly everyone has contributed in one way or another
to the production of this book. The director, Archibald G. Wenley, has been interested
from the outset, has sponsored all the necessary travel, and has made welcome sugges-
tions; Dr. Richard Ettinghausen took a number of additional photographs on his
latest trip to Tehran and provided help on the Iranian phases of the work; and Harold
P. Stern called attention to a number of useful Japanese references. The photographic
prints were made by Burns A. Stubbs and Raymond A. Schwartz, and Bertha M. Usil-
ton has helped with the bibliography and prepared the index. The many versions of
the manuscript have been typed and kept in order successively by Jean H. Copley
and Emily F. Boone who have been helpful in many ways.
No one has made a more important contribution to the final appearance and use-
fulness of this volume than has EHzabeth S. Ettinghausen, who took most of the photo-
graphs. Working from lists, she made 268 negatives in Tehran under conditions
that were something less than ideal, and I wish to record here my full appreciation of
her effort, her interest in the project, and her skill as a photographer.
From the beginning, when she wrote the original notes and kept them in order
during the hectic days in the blistering heat of Tehran and Isfahan, to the end, when
she read the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions as to its form and
content, my wife has given constant help and support.
CHRONOLOGICAL DATA
The dynasties, rulers, and reign names listed below are those of particular interest
to this study.
CHINA
SUNG 960-1279
YUAN 1260-1367
(Nineteen years elapsed between Khubilai's election as Khan and the extinction of the last
Sung pretender. The only Yiian reign period mentioned here is Chih-cheng, 1341-1367.)
MING 1368-1644
(Normally each new emperor contmued to use the old reign name until the end of the calendar
year in which he came to the throne. Thus the dates of actual tenure are not identical with the
dates of the reign periods. For the Ming Dynasty both sets of dates are given below.)
Emperors Years and Moons
T'ai-tsu 1368(1)-1398(5)
Huei-ti 1398(5)-1402(6)
Ch'eng-tsu 1402(6)-1424(7)
Jen-tsung 1424(8)
Hsuan-tsung 1425(6)-1435(1)
Ying-tsung 1435(1)-1449(8)
T'ai-tsung 1449(8)-1457(2)
Ymg-tsung (again) .... 1457(2)-1464(1)
Hsien-tsung 1464(1 )-1487(8)
Hsiao-tsung 1487(9)-1505(5)
Wu-tsung 1505(6)-1521(3)
Shih-tsung 1521(4)-1566(12)
Mu-tsung 1566(12)-1572(5)
Shen-tsung 1572(6)-1620(7)
Kuang-tsung 1620(8)-1620(9)
Hsi-tsung 1620(9)-1627(8)
Chuang-lieh-ti 1627(8)-1644(3)
CHTNG 1644-1912
Reign Names Years
Shun-chih 1644-1661
K'ang-hsi 1662-1722
Yung-cheng 1723-1735
Ch'ien-lung 1736-1796
Chia-ch'ing 1797-1820
Reign Names Years
Hung-wu 1368-1398
Chien-wen 1399-1402
Yung-lo 1403-1424
Hung-hsi 1425
Hsuan-te 1426-1435
Cheng-t'ung 1436-1449
Ching-t'ai 1450-1457
T'ien-shun 1458-1464
Ch'eng-hua 1465-1487
Hung-chih 1488-1505
Cheng-te 1506-1521
Chia-ching 1522-1566
Lung-ch'ing 1567-1572
Wan-U 1573-1620
T'ai-ch'ang 1620
T'ien-ch'i 1621-1627
Ch'ung-chen 1628-1644
Reign Names Years
Tao-kuang 1821-1850
Hsien-feng 1851-1861
Tung-chih 1862-1874
Kuang-hsu 1875-1908
Hsuan-t'ung 1909-1911
IRAN
The principal events related in this account of the Ardebil Collection took place when Iran
was controlled by the Timurids (1369-1500) and during the first half of the Safavid Dynasty which
reigned from 1501-1736. The genealogy of the Safavid rulers through Shah 'Abbas I is sketched
in the first chapter.
PART I— INTRODUCTION
HISTORY
ARDEBIL AND THE RISE OF THE SAFAVID DYNASTY
Some 30 miles west of the Caspian Sea not far from the Russian border the town
of Ardebil stands on a plateau almost 5,000 feet high where, since ancient times, it has
prospered by virtue of its commanding position at the crossing of two major avenues
of trade: the road from Tabriz to the Caspian and that from Astrakhan to the great
cities of central Iran. Although its origin is involved in legendary events of great
antiquity, its actual founding is credited by tradition to the Sasanian emperor Firuz in
the fifth century of our era; and by Umaiyad times it was the capital of Azerbaijan
Province. Through the centuries its fortunes rose and fell; it was more than once de-
stroyed and rebuilt, and after it was laid waste by the Mongols about 1220 it rose again,
more beautiful than ever, to await the event that was to bring it lasting fame and in-
cidentally make it the home of the porcelain collection which is the subject of this
book.
This was the birth of the man who was to become the ancestor of the Safavid
kings of Iran, the Sheikh Ishaq SafI ed-Dln, the Sufi saint who claimed descent from
Musa Kazim, the seventh Imam, and through him from 'All and the Prophet himself.
Although the genealogy is obscure,' there is ample evidence that Sheikh Safi, as he is
known for short, was a man of extraordinary sanctity and great personal influence in
his own time. Most of his life was spent in religious pursuits; and for 25 years he sat
at the feet of the Sheikh Zahid of Gllan, whose daughter BibI Fatima he married and
whom he succeeded as head of an order of Sufis whose courage and self-sacrificing
devotion to the Safavid cause were to become proverbial. On Safi's death in 1334 at
the age of 85 the title of Sheikh passed to his second son, Sadr ed-Din, who headed the
Order for 59 years and was himself credited with many miracles. During his long life
he directed the compilation of a vast monograph, the source of all our information
about his saintly father; he built the latter's tomb at Ardebil, thus in effect estabhshing
the spiritual core of the Shrine; and at the end of his life, hke his father before him, he
performed the pilgrimage to Mecca. His son Khwaja 'AH, who inherited the title in
1392, took, perhaps unwittingly at the time, the second important step toward estab-
hshing the future power of the Safavids. Having won the good will of Tlmur by a dis-
play of his physical prowess, he persuaded the great conqueror to release a group of
' Browne, A literary history of Persia, vol. 4, pp. 31-35. Chapters 1-3 of this volume provide
a useful short account of the Safavid Dynasty and its background; unless otherwise noted the details
of this historical sketch and the quoted passages are taken from that source.
3
4
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Turkish prisoners captured at Dyar Bakr; and the grateful devotion of these "Turkish
Sufis" as they were known passed undiminished from generation to generation and
placed a fanatically loyal following at the disposal of the Safavids for the next three
centuries. But this is to anticipate; and it was only under Juneid, the grandson of
Khwaja 'Ah, that the family showed its first signs of temporal ambition when he ingra-
tiated himself with tJzun Hasan, the celebrated leader of the "White Sheep" Dynasty
(Aq-qoyunlu) of the Turkomans, and received the hand of his sister in marriage.
This alHance led only to disaster, for it so alarmed the neighboring princes that they
united against Juneid, and he was killed in battle after only nine years of Sheikhhood.
Heidar his son, who became Sheikh in 1456, continued the friendship with Uzun Hasan
and married his daughter Martha, whose MusHm name was Halima, granddaughter on
the distaff side of a member of the noble Greek family of the Comneni, Kalo loannes,
the last Christian emperor of Trebizond; and his principal contributions to the cause
were first his further organization of the "Turkish Sufis" mentioned above, particularly
his decision that they should be distinguished by wearing scarlet caps, which quickly
gave them the nickname Qizilbdsh (Redheads) as they were henceforth known in
history, an epithet of pride among themselves but a term of violent abuse in the mouths
of their enemies; and second the fact that he was the father of Isma'il.
Orphaned at the age of one and hidden from his father's enemies during childhood,
this remarkable boy emerged from seclusion at the age of 13 with seven Sufi followers
to rally the seven loyal Turkish tribes that composed the Qizilbdsh, march through a
series of military victories in the northwest, and make a triumphal entry into Tabriz,
where he was crowned Shah of Iran in his fifteenth year (1501-1502). First to bear
that title since the death of the last Sasanian ruler in 652, Shah Isma'il lost no time in
consoHdating his territory, and in the next decade he brought under his control such
widely separated places as Baghdad, Dyar Bakr, and Herat. Behind the young Shah's
meteoric success in restoring Iran to the physical size it enjoyed in the days of its an-
cient greatness lay not only extraordinary personal qualities of leadership and charm,
which are repeatedly stressed in contemporary accounts by his own countrymen as well
as by visiting Europeans (who must have been hard put to it to reconcile them with
his sometimes savage cruelty), but also a fanatical and single-minded devotion to the
propagation of the Shf a doctrine. Finding at their head a gifted military leader who
was at the same time directly descended from an Imam, the ShI'as were united as
never before in their determination to destroy their enemies the hated Sunnis wherever
they might be. The very battle cry of the Safavids proclaimed their faith, "God! God!
and 'All is the Friend of God!" and when Isma'il assumed the crown he resolved that
"the Shi'a faith should become not merely the State rehgion but the only tolerated
creed." To the reahstic doubts of the Shl'a divines who knew they were still vastly out-
numbered, the Shah repUed, "I am committed to this action; God and the Immaculate
Imams are with me and I fear no one; by God's help, if the people utter one word of
SHAH 'ABBAS AND THE SHRINE
5
protest, I will draw the sword and leave not one of them alive." To further impress
his views on his people he instituted the public cursing of the first three Cahphs of the
Sunnis, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman, with the added refinement that all who heard
should respond on pain of death, "May it be more, not less!" Thus strengthening the
irreconcilable animosity of Shi'a against Sunni, Isma'il established the background
against which the history of the newly founded Safavid Dynasty was to unfold, for
Iran lay in the middle with fanatical and powerful SunnI forces on either side: the
Ottoman Turks to the west and the Uzbeks of Transoxiana to the northeast. It was the
former, under the leadership of Sultan Sellm the Grim, who inflicted upon Isma'il his
only major military defeat at the great battle of Chaldiran in August 1514, a Turkish
victory which led to the occupation of Tabriz and thus played its part in the formation
of the Ottoman collection of Chinese porcelains at Istanbul.' But this was only a tem-
porary setback; Isma'il recaptured Tabriz within a matter of weeks, and Sellm, beset by
domestic troubles and preoccupied with the conquest of Egypt, Syria, and Arabia, did
not threaten again. When Shah Isma'il died at the age of 38 (23 May 1524), he be-
queathed to his successors the greatest Iranian nation since the rise of Islam, beset by
formidable enemies on both sides and defended by an army which made up in fanati-
cism what it lacked in military genius and equipment.
SHAH 'ABBAS THE GREAT AND THE SHRINE OF SHEIKH SAFI
Thus established, the Safavids enjoyed another century of greatness, and we need
dwell but briefly on the historical scene. Shah Tahmasp, son of Isma'il, continued
the wars with his traditional enemies ah through his 52-year reign on a pattern set by
them rather than by himself. His Ottoman adversary, Siileyman the Magnificent
("The Grand Turk"), to free his eastern flank from pressure that he might concen-
trate on his principal objective, the conquest of the Holy Roman Empire, incited the
Uzbeks to harass the Persians in Khorasan; and the European powers at the same time
encouraged the Shah to continue the attack on his Turkish frontier in the hope of
diminishing the Sultan's threat along the Danube. In this complex game Tahmasp
more than held his own; but ground was lost by his two sons Shah Isma'il II, a blood-
thirsty and debauched character who died of his excesses after 18 months on the
throne, and Shah Mohammad Khoda-bandeh who abdicated after 10 years of indeci-
sion in favor of his son 'Abbas.
It was October 1587 when this second son of Mohammad Khoda-bandeh, the
first having been murdered by a barber and the two younger having been deprived of
their eyesight and imprisoned in the Castle of Alamut by 'Abbas himself, ascended the
throne as Shah 'Abbas to begin a 42-year reign in which he was to raise Iran "to the
^ Pope, Fourteenth-century blue-and-white , p. 12.
6
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
highest degree of power, prosperity and splendour ever attained by her in modern
times." The international situation remained the same, and by skillful handling of his
adversaries in the beginning Shah 'Abbas paved the way for ultimate victories on both
fronts and was then free to turn to the philanthropic activities for which he won his
lasting fame. Toward the end of the sixteenth century he moved his capital to Isfahan,
which he made one of the beautiful cities of the world; he restored the Shrine of the
Imam Reza and rebuilt Mashhad, which had suffered destruction at the hands of the
Uzbeks, and also improved and beautified the cities of Qazvin, Kashan, Astarabad,
Tabriz, and Hamadan. But the benefaction that concerns us here was that bestowed
on the ancestral home of the dynasty, the town of Ardebil where our brief historical
sketch began with the birth of the Sheikh Safi more than three centuries earher.
It was in Ardebil, as we have already seen, that Sadr ed-Dln about the middle of
the fourteenth century had built a tomb for his saintly father and thus brought into
being the Shrine which was to increase in size through the years as the Holy Order grew
in strength and influence until it became a dynasty; and Shah 'Abbas the Great was
responsible for certain major improvements and additions. Unfortunately there seems
to have been Httle effort to draw upon contemporary texts as aids to the reconstruction
of the history of the Shrine; and most of what we know today rests upon Sarre's study
of the site as he found it at the beginning of this century.* He describes the whole as
"a complex of various building entities, grouped around a court, which were intended
as tombs, mosque, library, porcelain collection, rooms for domestic purposes and
dwelling purposes for the mollds and for pilgrims, the poor, and for fugitives"; his
plan is reproduced on plate 2. Entering the main gate from the meidan, the visitor
moved southeast passing through a large formal garden a hundred yards long on the
longer side and entered the small forecourt through silver-mounted doors. At the
left of this in ancient times lay the kitchen from which the hospitaUty of the Shrine was
dispensed. Beyond, through a second silver door, was the great forecourt; and enter-
ing this the visitor stood facing the long wall of the prayer hall with the dome of the
Holy of Holies, the tomb of the Sheikh SafI, rising at its southwestern end; to the left
in the short end of the court opened the eivan that is the vestibule to the mosque.
Adjoining the far side of the prayer hall and forming the eastern end of the Shrine as a
whole was the Chini-khaneh (China house) which housed the great porcelain
collection.
Historically, the mosque came first and was already almost a hundred years old
when Sadr ed-Dln built the tomb of the Sheikh Safi. Shah Ismail seems to have
erected his own tomb, perhaps between 1510 and 1520; and it was Tahmasp who
brought together the individual structures and created a unified complex around the
great forecourt on the basic plan that remains today. The reconstruction undertaken
* Sarre, Denkm'dler persischer Baukunst, 1901 (plates) and 1910 (text). The details given
here are taken from that work unless otherwise noted.
SHAH 'ABBAS AND THE SHRINE
7
by Shah 'Abbas included the kitchens, the enlargement of the mosque, additional
dwellings for the clergy and for fugitives, and also, presumably, the building of the
Chiiii-khdneh, although the possibility remains that the outer shell may be earher and
that his contribution was hmited to the magnificent interior designed to receive his
gift.
The domed, thick-walled structure shows a square exterior with blunted corners
and a half-round buttress in the middle of each side (pi. 3 ) . But the interior is curious
in that the square under the dome has been rotated 45° so that each corner points to
the middle of an outer wall, and the great niches which open from the sides fill the
corners of the exterior square. Most remarkable of all is the interior revetment of this
great chamber, which measures some 32 feet on each side of the inner square with
niches over 14 feet wide and 12 feet deep (pi. 4). Around the bottom of the walls is
an 8-foot dado of colored tiles decorated with elaborate patterns including vases,
flowers, and scrolling tendrils; and above this, covering the entire area up to the base
of the cupola, is a paneling of wood in which have been cut hundreds of niches of
various shapes to serve as receptacles for the porcelains. The entire woodwork and
the vaulting of the dome are painted in blue and gold. Thus did Shah 'Abbas prepare
a setting which he considered to be in keeping with the magnificence of his gift of
Chinese porcelain; thus did he enhance his own merit by dedicating his choicest pos-
sessions to the memory of his saintly ancestor, the founder of his house, the Sheikh
Safi ed-Din.
This was not an isolated gesture but part of a large-scale philanthropic program,
and it will be of interest to note briefly the circumstances in which it was carried out.
In 1607 Shah 'Abbas returned to Isfahan after four years of campaigning, and having
rewarded those who helped him reestabUsh the frontiers of his empire by gifts of robes
of honor, promotions in the hierarchy of Begs, Sultans, and Khans, by political appoint-
ments and grants of fiefs, he set up a series of endowments in the names of the Four-
teen Innocents: the Prophet, his daughter Fatima, and the 12 Imams. His personal
fortune at that time consisted of lands and the slaves that went with them to the value
of 100,000 tomans, which brought him a net income of 7,000 tomans a year, in addi-
tion to stores surrounding the Meiddn-e-Shah at Isfahan and a considerable number of
bathhouses which he had had built. All this went into the foundation (vaqf) which
was divided into 14 parts beginning with the largest share in the name of the Prophet
and prorated in descending order of spiritual importance to the twelfth Imam. The
income of these trusts, the management of which was reserved to the Shah and his
successors, was to be used particularly to help the indigent, the honest, the scholars,
doctors of rehgious law, theological students, and devotees, and in general to be spent
in the interest of reUgion and the state. At the same time that he made this disposition
of his lands for purposes of the general good. Shah 'Abbas made special bequests of
his personal property also in the form of vaqfs to be used in the same way. It was thus
8
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
that he gave to the Shrine of Mashhad his Arabic books on religious science, and to
the Ardebil Shrine his Persian books of history and poetry and his porcelain dishes.
He also got rid of all his jewels, his gold and silver vessels, his studs of stalUons and
mares of all breeds, his camels, his flocks, in a word all he possessed; and it then
passed from his hands into those of the Shi'ite community and more particularly of the
Tajik people who became the true beneficiaries. It was the first time in the history of
Iran that a sovereign performed a deed so broadly humanitarian in scope; and Shah
'Abbas was to be repaid a hundredfold all through his reign by the eager and selfless
devotion of the mollas and the people who adored him as they did a divinity.^
THE DEDICATION OF THE PORCELAINS
By great good fortune the account of the benefaction which interests us most has
been preserved in the writings of a man who may weU have been present at the time,
Jalal ed-Din Mohammad Munajjim Yazdi, chief astronomer (munajjim) at the
court of Shah 'Abbas. His book, Ta'rikh-e-Abbasi, a year-by-year record of the his-
tory of Iran, from the death of Shah Tahmasp in 1576 through the twenty-fifth year of
the reign of 'Abbas, survives today in several manuscript copies, among them three in
the British Museum and one in the Bodleian Library, all dating from the seventeenth
century." Near the end of the book Molla Jalal, as he calls himself, describes the
events that took place in the summer of 1611 as the Shah journeyed to Ardebil and
relates the small miracles that occurred in the Shrine itself before the vaqf was estab-
lished; his narrative has the flavor of an eyewitness account. In translation the passage
runs: ' "On the 18th of this month (28 August 1611) he ('Abbas) marched forth
from the pasturelands of Sultanlyeh and encamped on the outskirts of Zinjan, where
a stud of horses was brought to him. From amongst these he gave 41 mares and 100
horses to deserving people and to learned men: 400 horses were bestowed upon the
qurchi and ghulamdn: and a stud comprising 600 horses, mares, and stallion foals
was granted to Mohammad Beg Shams ed-Dln. On the 21st of the month he crossed
Mount Bardlis, whose upward slopes told of the highest level of the dun-coloured
heavens, and whose lower slopes gave hint of the treasure of Qarun. And toward the
^ Bellan, Chah 'Abbas I, pp. 170-171. This book is undocumented, and it is impossible to trace
any given statement to its source; but the passage which is partly translated and partly paraphrased
here probably gives a reasonably good general view of the establishment of vaqfs at this time.
Storey, Persian literature, vol. 2, no. 384. Two of the British Museum copies, Add. 27.241
and Or. 3549, are catalogued by Rieu, I: 184, and Supp. 57; the third one. Or. 7465 (1), is not in
Rieu. There must be other copies in Iran which were consulted by Bahrami and Aubin.
^ Roger M. Savory, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, very gen-
erously took the time to make this translation from B. M. Add. 27.241, fol. 339-342, and while
he wishes it to be considered very tentative pending further study, he has been kind enough to
consent to its publication here.
THE DEDICATION OF THE PORCELAINS
9
end of Jumada II ® he entered the precincts of the 'pole-star of the gnostics', Shah SafI,
and after visiting the shrine he went toward the kitchens, and when he went toward a
cauldron the hd of a nearby saucepan lifted itself about nine inches and crashed down
on the saucepan with such a noise that those who were in the kitchen. . . . The 'dog of
the threshold of 'Ah' ('Abbas) placed his head upon the ground and returned thanks.
When ... the Md as before became separated from the saucepan, and returned of its
own voHtion, much to the astonishment of those present. The 'dog of the threshold
of 'All' ('Abbas) gave 12 tomans to the cooks, and they made four mortars of silver.
But it is well known that an Arab brought this saucepan from Mecca in 921/1515,
and bequeathed it to the shrine, and later, because of certain statements unbecoming
to Sufis, he turned away from the shrine and went to the home of the 'Uthmanlu.
After awhile he regretted his action, and returning he slew a sacrificial sheep and put
it in the cauldron. When it came to the boil, all the pieces of meat fell out, and this
occurrence increased the faith of the Sufis in the reign of Shah Isma'il II. And he
('Abbas) gave orders that the door of the shrine be enlarged and be made of gold,
and that the tomb of Rostam Mirza, the son of the late Shah Isma'il, should be leveled
so that it should not get in the way of the door opening: he further ordered that a
peripheral wall should be constructed of silver, and that the dias before the inner sanc-
tuary should be enlarged, and that a door should be constructed in the centre leading
into the inner sanctuary. And for two years no drums were beaten at the shrine except
his. After the happening of this miracle, the royal decree ordained that they should
restore ... it to its former condition, and this was a source of great joy to the men
and women of Ardebil. And when the prince who is the 'dog of the threshold of 'AH'
('Abbas) set out to perform the pilgrimage to the shrine of the Shah whose place is
paradise (SafI) , the lower door which is outside the inner sanctuary was closed. When
the auspicious hand reached the door of the sharbat-khdneh of the 'pole-star of
gnostics' (SafI), he placed his hand on the lock, and the door opened at once. And
when he reached the sharbat-khdneh, which the 'dog of the threshold of 'All'
('Abbas) had endowed — the spiritual reward for this act he placed to the credit of his
mother in heaven — a crowd which had heard the news of these spiritual activities
began to arrive in large groups, and when the 'dog of the threshold of 'AH' put his
hand upon the lock, the lock parted, and this act increased the faith of the people.
And a very fine china-store was created. And the articles of china, etc., which the
noble and holy slave, the prince who is the 'dog of the threshold of 'Ali' ('Abbas),
bestowed to the holy and illustrious shrine of the 'pole-star of the gnostics' (SafI), and
for which Maulana Mohammad Hosein Hakkak-e-Khorasani (the paragon of his age)
engraved the vaqfndmeh, and which were transferred to the china-store, are as
tabulated on the following page.
^ This month fell between 1 1 August and 8 September.
10
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Langari: large, medium, and small 270
Bddiyeh: (wine cups) 45
Sahn, etc 60
Sahncheh 61
Shah kaseh: (large bowls), large, medium,
small 170
Na'lbakl: (saucers) 206
Piyaleh: (small bowls) 95
Aftdbeh: (ewers) large and small 14
Tabak-e sorkh: (red trays) 23
Qardbeh: (double-handled pitchers),
large 5
Sardhi: (long-necked jars) 9
Tabak 4
Qadah: (wme bowls) 19
Kuzeh: (earthenware jugs) 1
Sabii: (tall jars with single handle) 5
Mar tab an 32
Markdb 36
Sabi' 2
Kafcheh 3
Huqqeh: large and small 6
Marhamddni 1
KdvdUsh 1
Namakddn: (saltcellar) 1
Finjdn: (cup) 1
Piyaleh, huqqeh, etc 84
Zuruf: (vessels) of Yamanite carnehan
(or agate) — pasha, etc. yashb
Kashkid: (beggar's bowls) 3
Piydleh-ye-yashb 4
Yamani carnelian 'an Kashkul P
"At this time too Turab Khan, the son of Sheikh Shah Beg, was killed by Vali
Sheikh Beg, because his father Sheikh Shah Beg had been instrumental in having
Sultan Hasan Khan, who had taken sanctuary in the Shrine, dragged forth and killed.
. . . The 'dog of the threshold of 'Ali' ('Abbas) overlooked this crime ... so that
it might be a warning to others . . . , and the people of Nau Dihi in Talish. . . .
Since he killed a Sayyid of Abhar, he took sanctuary in the shrine of the 'pole-star of
the gnostics' (Safi) . At the royal command Faridun Khan marched against a group of
the Kuklan tribe, and killed 500 men of that tribe, and forwarded all the articles he
seized for the royal consideration. And on the first day of Rajab (9 September 1611)
he ('Abbas) gave 14,000 tomans for the gold and silver of the doors and windows of
the shrine and the kitchens, and the work was commenced. It was decided to make
the doors and the windows of the inner sanctuary of gold, and the windows in front
of the sanctuary of silver. And he stayed for 15 days in Ardebil, making careful
enquiries into the condition of poor and infirm. And he decided to repair the school
of the Shah Jannat-MakanI (Safi), which had been destroyed (or had fallen into
disrepair)."
Thus did Shah 'Abbas make his gift to the Shrine. The itemized list of Jalal
ed-Din totals 1,162 pieces," but in spite of the detailed form of the account the nature
of the Persian terminology makes it difficult to identify any of the pieces which remain
today. Some of the terms are translated above, and they give only a rather general
" The original text of this hst is reproduced on plate 5.
" Bahrami, TOCS, 25 (1949-1950) : 14-15, gives 1,221 mcluding six pieces of jade and agate.
This must be accounted for by the discrepancies between the figures preserved in various surviving
versions of the text. There seems to be no reference to the manuscripts mentioned by later visitors
to the Shrine (pp. 13-16), or to the carpets which Bahrami told me were also included in the gift
(HJAS, 13: 559n.).
THREE CENTURIES OF RUMOR
11
idea of what may have been intended in the seventeenth century. Some of them may
be examined a Uttle further. Langari means a large tub, basin, or laver; and in view
of the number of this type recorded, it seems Hkely that the reference is to the large
dishes. The suggestion that bddiyeh means wine cups is tantalizing; does it imply that
originally there were stem cups although none remain today? " Sahn is a large tray,
plate or dish, or a wide basin; but it is hard to say how they distinguished these from
langari. Shah kaseh, large bowls, and piydleh, small bowls, are probably identifiable
among the whole range of vessels of that type. Ewers, aftabeh, are also easy to point
out, and a dozen of the original 14 survive; but again it is not easy to tell what they
had in mind in Usting five sabii which may mean the same. Tabak-e sorkh, red trays,
seems insoluble at the moment; had there been any Ming lacquer it is unHkely that they
would have included it among porcelains. Martabdn is a well-known Near Eastern
term for celadon,'' but it is curious that more of these remain today than were noted
in the original list. Kafcheh means spoon, ladle or skimmer and is very puzzling.
Huqqeh is the word usually written hookah in English where it means a water pipe or
narghile, and this probably refers to the vessels of that type described here as kendi ";
but the Persian word can also be used to describe vessels of several other types and
uses. Kdvdush (or rather gdvdush) is described as a vessel with a wide top and narrow
bottom for milking, a milk container, or a churn, and the one listed must be 29.48 1
(pi. 96). The last four entries refer to the jade or other hardstone vessels in the
collection.
Because of its very general nature, this list throws little light on what the Saf avids
thought of these treasures. While they seem to have had no interest in the decoration,
the fact that they felt it important to dedicate these wares to the ancestral shrine and to
include an inventory in the record of the dedication indicates the high regard in which
porcelain was held. Although it is well known that large shipments were reaching
Europe in the early years of the seventeenth century,"" there is still no accurate infor-
mation on the quantities that went to Iran; but abundant or scarce, cheap or expensive,
it was, above all, porcelain, a material that combined beauty and practicality to an un-
heard-of degree, and a material they could not make. For these qualities alone it com-
manded admiration and respect.
THREE CENTURIES OF RUMOR
For the period of almost 300 years between the dedication of the porcelains to
the ancestral Shrine in 1611 and the publication of Sarre's text in 1910, the fullest
sources of information at our disposal are the journals of European travelers who
" Cf. p. 63 below.
i-Cf. Pope, Fourteenth-century blue-and-white , p. 10.
"Nos. 29.445, 464, 465, 466, 472; plates 69, 97, and pp. 116-117, 132-133.
""See p. 136 below, and T. Volker, Porcelain and the Dutch East India Company, Leiden,
1954, pp. 21-24.
12
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
visited Ardebil and recorded their observations. In these sporadic and uneven ac-
counts we can trace the varying fortunes of the Shrine and the porcelain collection
down to our own times. As will be seen from the selected quotations which follow, the
tone and scope of the reports vary greatly with the personal tastes and interests of the
several observers; some did not mention the Chim-khaneh at all, while others marveled
at it, but when taken all together the journals provide a full and often Uvely picture
of the activities of a major national shrine and the part it played in Persian life particu-
larly in the seventeenth century.
To cite the writings of all these travelers in full, even insofar as they touch on
Ardebil alone, would extend this section beyond reasonable bounds, and the passages
that have been chosen are Hmited for the most part to those that speak of the porcelain
collection. On the other hand, one or two are of such general interest in throwing
Ught on the function of the Shrine or on its condition, or on the attitude of Christian
Europeans toward Muslim Persians in the early days of their contact, that they seem
worthy of inclusion. For these reasons and because he was the first of a long series
of hardy spirits to make the difficult journey, it is appropriate to begin with the words
of Anthony Jenkinson, who traveled to Persia by way of Russia on behalf of the Right
Worshipfull Societie of Merchants Adventurers, bearing credentials from Queen
EUzabeth I, for the purpose of establishing commercial relations.'* Arriving in the
reign of Shah Tahmasp some 49 years before the benefactions of Shah 'Abbas were
bestowed on the Shrine, he wrote, ". . . the 16. day of October [1562] we arrived at
a citie called Ordowill [Ardebil], where we were lodged in a hospital! builded with
faire stone, and erected by this Sophie's " father named Ismael, only for the succor
and lodging of strangers and other travellers, wherein all men have victuals and feed-
ing for man and horse, for 3. dayes, and no longer. This foresayed late prince Ismael,
Ueth buried in a faire Meskit [= Masjid = Mosque], with a sumptuous sepulchre in
the same, which he caused to be made in his hfetime." Here the Shrine is revealed
in its function as travelers rest house, but in spite of the hospitality thus afforded to
strangers we feel the bitter underlying hatred of Christian for Muslim in a short pas-
sage soon after where Jenkinson describes the Persians as "esteeming all to be infidels
and Pagans which doe not believe as they doe, in their false filthie prophets Mahomet
and Murtezallie." "
It was Jenkinson who brought back the great Ardebil carpet dated 1540 in the Victoria and
Albert Museum.
" To contemporary Europeans the Safavid Shah was The Great Sophie or Sophi. Browne, op.
cit., p. 21, says it derives from the fact that the Shah was not only temporal ruler but also spiritual
leader (Sheikh) of the Sufis and hence the Great Sufi or Sophi; he doubts if it can be considered a
corruption of the dynastic name Safav'i. Ross, Sir Anthony Sherley, p. 92n., however, clings to the
latter explanation.
Jenkinson, Early voyages and travels to Russia and Persia, p. 139.
" Op. cit., p. 145.
THREE CENTURIES OF RUMOR
13
Jenkinson's countrymen, the famous Sherley brothers who reached Persia in 1598
and served Shah 'Abbas in various capacities, seem not to have visited Ardebil; and
the next to do so was the Italian Pietro della Valle, who stopped there about 1619.
He described the Shrine but declined to enter the tomb of the Sheikh and only relates
the impression he gained from his traveUng companion, the remarkable Madame
Maani. Soon thereafter, however, comes the most complete of the seventeenth-century
accounts and the first to mention the porcelain collection. It is that written by Adam
Olearius who served as secretary to the ambassadors sent by Frederick, Duke of Hol-
stein, to the Great Duke of Moscovy and the King of Persia, and arrived in Ardebil in
1637. Describing it as "one of the most ancient and most celebrious cities of all the
Kingdome, not only by reason of the residence which several Kings of Persia made
there, but also particularly upon this accompt, that Shich-Sefi, Author of their Sect,
liv'd and dy'd there," he goes on to discuss the climate and the products of the region.
Coming to the Shrine, he begins with the approach including this interesting passage,
"Leaving the Maydan you come into the Bazar . . . three covered streets all beset
with shops . . . several caravanserais ... for the convenience of foreign mer-
chants as Turks, Tartars, Indians, etc. We saw there also two Chineses, who had
brought ther, to be sold, Porcelane, and several things of Lacque." Then he describes
the Prayer-Hall and the Sepulchre and continues thus, "Having taken notice of all that
was to be seen in that place, we were conducted through the same Gallery, towards
the right hand, into another spacious apartment, which was arched all about and Gilt;
where we could not but admire the manner of its building, which being as large as a
fair Church, was nevertheless sustained by the strength of the Roof, and without
Pillars. This Hall is called Tzenetsera {— Chini-serai = Chini-khdneh], and serves
for a Library." At this point he gives an account of the books in Arabic, Persian, and
Turkish, bound and covered with gold and silver plates, and some with colored illus-
trations, and continues, "In the Neeches of the Vault, there were above three or four
hundred vessels of Porcelane; some, so large, as that they contain'd above 40. quarts
of Liquor.'* These are only used at the entertainments, which are brought from the
Sepulchre, to the King and other great Lords, who pass that way: for the holiness of
that place permits not that they should make use of any Gold or Silver. Nay, it is re-
ported of Shich-Sefi, that he, out of an excessive humihty, made use only of Woodden
Dishes." " Olearius was also immensely impressed by the wealth of the Shrine which
he describes thus, "The foundations of several Kings, its vast Revenues, and the Pres-
ents which are daily made thereto, do so augment the Wealth of it, that some conceive,
its Treasure amounts to many Millions of Gold, and that, in case of necessity, this
Mesar [= Mazar = Shrine, place of pilgrimage] might raise and maintain a very
The largest vessels in the surviving collection are the kuan vases like 29.520 (pi. 79). A
similar piece in the Freer Gallery of Art (45.35) holds 79 quarts by actual measure.
" Olearius, The voyages and travells of the ambassadors . . . , p. 179.
14
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
powerful Army, and that it would furnish more ready Money than the King could
himself."
Some 40 years after Olearius, the Frenchman Jean Baptiste Tavernier saw the
Shrine but made no reference to the porcelain and thereafter we are left with a gap
of more than a century until Jaubert in 1805-1806 described the tombs of Sheikh
SafI, Heidar, and Isma'Il as "places sous domes peu eleves et tombant en ruines." "
It was James Morier, creator of the immortal Hajji Baba of Ispahan, who, on his
second journey to Iran, was next to mention the porcelains in these brief terms: "From
the tombs we were led to a saloon of large dimensions, painted and ornamented in a
beautiful style, and upon the floor of which were placed a great variety of Chinese
bowls, vases, etc. besides several curious wrought cups of jade and agate, that did not
appear to be of Mohamedan workmanship. A collection of manuscript books, the
gift of Shah Abbas, were here preserved, in two large closets inserted in the wall, and
which we were permitted to inspect. The books were in excellent preservation, and
consisted of the best Persian works, some of which were beautifully written and highly
illuminated. Most of them were stamped with the seal of Shah Abbas; and on the
blank page at the beginning of each, it was inscribed, that they were left for the use of
those who would read them on the spot, but that a curse would fall upon whomsoever
should take them from it." Among the books he described two of special interest, "a
koran, six hundred years old, made of the thick silky paper of Khatai, so large and
heavy that two men could scarcely lift it; and a book in the Cuffick character, con-
taining several chapters of the koran, as we were assured, written by the hand of Ali,
seven years after the hejra." This is the first reference to the jade vessels mentioned
in the list of Jalal ed-Din, and the first time the porcelains were described as being on
the floor, a circumstance explained less than a decade later by the next visitor to
record what he saw.
James B. Fraser entered Ardebil on 9 July 1821 and found it in a poor state.
"I took every opportunity to examine the town of Ardebeel," he wrote, "though it
does not contain many objects capable of arresting the traveller's attention"; and he
described it as built on the remains of a famous city and now not equal to a third the
size of Shiraz having no more than five or six hundred famihes. Of the Chini-khdneh
he wrote, "A large octagonal apartment, covered by the principal dome, has obtained
the name of zerfkhanah or china-ware-room, because all the dishes used in the feasts
which Shah Ismael gave to his daily guests, were preserved here in niches formed for
the purpose in the wall. This apartment had been very richly adorned, and the niches
Op. cit., p. 180.
Tavernier, Les six voyages . . . , pp. 54-55.
Jaubert, Voyage en Armenie et en Perse . . . , p. 167.
Morier, A second journey through Persia . . . , pp. 255-256. Morier visited the Shrine on
19 October 1812.
THREE CENTURIES OF RUMOR
15
which occupy the walls on all sides, and in various figures, produce an effect resem-
bling that of a magnificent fretwork. But the china-ware no longer fills them; in one
of the earthquakes to which this district is hable, so many of them were thrown down
and destroyed, that the whole were taken from their cells and placed upon the floor,
where they now stand covered with dust. There are also in the chamber, as I under-
stood, some valuable books, in hke manner going to decay." Eraser also added an
interesting observation on the finances of the Shrine at his time when he said it had
no fixed revenues as had those at Mashhad and Qum but was dependent on the dona-
tions of pilgrims and pious Shi'as; and he assumed this was why foreigners Uke himself
were allowed to visit every part of it. He was told there that the Qajars "are more apt
to take from than give to an establishment of any kind," an observation that helps
more than a Uttle to explain the sorry state of the monument under that dynasty.
In 1826 Lt. (later Sir) James Alexander, late H. M.'s 13th fight dragoons, and
then attached to the suite of Col. Macdonald Kinnier, K.L.S., Envoy Extraordinary to
the Court of Tehran, passed through Ardebil. On 28 August of that year he wrote,
"We proceeded to visit the tomb of Shaikh Suffee and his illustrious descendant. Shah
Ismail. Their remains repose under lofty domes; four swords surmounting the apex
of that of the latter. The ark over the grave of the saint is fenced off by a silver grating.
The rooms are highly ornamented. In one is a large collection of china (amongst
which I observed some beautiful agate cups and dishes), and a library of splendidly
bound and valuable books, one of which is remarkable for its weight. All of them had
been presented by Shah Abbas the Great, as offerings at the tombs of his ancestors."
Alexander was the last traveler to see the books, for in 1828 the Russians, who were
already stirring up trouble in the neighborhood and some of whom he met, sacked
Ardebil and carried off the hbrary, as is recorded by the few travelers who remain to be
quoted.
Colonel Montieth wrote in 1832, "The fine library was sent to Russia when the
place surrendered to Count Soukhtahne, and the tomb has been much damaged, at
least in outward appearance, by earthquakes." And in 1845 there appeared the least
flattering of all descriptions of the Shrine by W. R. Holmes who wrote, "The exterior
presents three or four domes, but is neither striking nor picturesque"; but he again
noticed the porcelains, and spoke of "the large domed chamber, containing the china
which belonged to Shah Ismael, or, as some say, to the Sheik, consisting principally of
large dishes, vases, drinking cups and flagons, spread out on the floor; the numerous
recesses in the walls originally intended for their reception, being left empty. The
walls and niches were beautifully gilt and painted." It is he who tells us that the
2* Fraser, Travels and adventures . . . , p. 296.
Alexander, Travels from India to England . . . , p. 189.
2« JRGS, 3 (1832) :27.
Holmes, Sketches on the shores of the Caspian . . . , p. 38.
16
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
books taken by the Russians were 160 in number, all that were found there, but that
"there were others in the possession of various inhabitants of Ardebeel, which thus
escaped the hands of the plunderers, and have since been restored to the hbrary."
Finally, the last account before that of Sarre was written in 1875 by Lt. Baron
Max von Thielmann, secretary of the Imperial German Embassy at St. Petersburg,
and is remarkable in at least two respects. The Baron wrote, "The celebrated Ubrary of
Sheikh Sefi no longer exists; after the capture of the town it was sent to St. Petersburg
by Paskiewitsch and incorporated into the Imperial Library. The mausoleum of
Sheikh Sefi possesses a treasure quite unrivalled. This is a collection of old Chinese
and Persian porcelain, offerings from Persian rulers, displayed over the floor of the
vaulted hall, which from its unique character is perhaps of incalculable value. These
offerings, amongst which are huge dishes and bowls, are so numerous that, in order to
find accommodation for them in the hall, they have been piled up one above the other
in small heaps. Even if the total amount of these pieces be estimated at 2,000, that
figure would, perhaps, still be below the margin. Owing to want of care a great many
of them have unfortunately been cracked or otherwise injured, and each individual
piece Hes buried beneath an inch of dust. It would have been a great gain to the world
at large, and to art in particular, if Paskiewitsch had equally sent this collection to
St. Petersburg." It seems likely that the noble author, who was the only traveler to
sense the importance of what he saw, did so because he was familiar with some of the
great porcelain collections which existed in Germany in his time; and apparently his
enthusiasm got the better of his judgment when it came to making an estimate of the
number of pieces.
A quarter of a century after Thielmann, the Shrine was visited for the first time
by a man who was trained to evaluate what he saw and to study it and record his find-
ings in terms which placed it in proper historical perspective. With Sarre, the period
of rumor came to an end. His description of the separate units that made up the elab-
orate architectural complex is the most complete one on record and must form the
basis of any future study; and his pubhcation includes photographs of the porcelains
on the floor of the Chlm-khdneh as well as comments on the scope and nature of the
collection. The passage runs thus, "The porcelain vessels which were originally placed
in the niches now stand upon the ground, approximately 500 in number. They are
blue-and-white Chinese Ming porcelains in a number of forms. Above aU there appear
among them large-barrelled vases almost a metre high; besides these there are plates,
bowls, pitchers; the latter are also frequently in pure Persian form. Among the blue-
and-white porcelains are some few vessels decorated in variegated enamel colors, and
further a number of jade works (cups and incense burners in the form of animal figures
and flowers) and finally a splendid gold-enamelled glass lamp. The great part of these
-8 Op. cit., p. 40.
Thielmann, Journey in the Caucasus . . . , vol. 2, pp. 33-34.
THREE CENTURIES OF RUMOR
17
vessels is well preserved." Some 20 years later, writing a popular article in connec-
tion with certain objects lent to the Exhibition of Persian Art held at Burhngton House
in 1930-1931, he again described the Ardebil Shrine and with it the Chini-khaneh;
while some of it repeats what he had written before, there are differences which are
worth noting, and to make the record as nearly complete as possible, this new descrip-
tion of the room and the porcelains is quoted in full: "The interior consists of a
square-domed chamber with four niches. Below is a tile covered base, then a corbel
with flat concave fluting, which leads to a most unusual wall decoration consisting of
pierced woodwork forming variously shaped niches, which served to contain pieces of
Chinese porcelain and follow the shapes of these vessels exactly. The general effect
at first sight is that of a very artistically arranged collector's cabinet or museum, and
may be compared to a European porcelain cabinet of the eighteenth century. Though
they now stand on the floor, the original position of the porcelain vessels in the corre-
sponding niches leaves no doubt about the artistic intention — the delight in the pre-
cious Chinese porcelain vessels — which must have determined the design; on the other
hand, the vessels also served purely practical purposes, and were used for meals at
court and on festive occasions such as the reception of foreign ambassadors. This is
no doubt the largest collection to find its way out of the country in early times, apart
from the collection in the Serail at Constantinople. Perhaps, as suggested by Mr. A.
[sic] L. Hobson, this Chinese porcelain was sent to Ardebil as a personal present from
the Chinese Emperor Wan-li (1573-1619), who is known to have sent similar pres-
ents to the Mogul Emperor of India. Most of the vessels belong to the cobalt-blue
underglaze painted Ming porcelain of the sixteenth to seventeenth century."
Three points in this passage are worthy of comment. As a glance at Plate 4 will
show, the many intricate niches with which the walls are covered by no means "follow
the shapes of these vessels exactly"; some of them approximate the porcelain shapes,
and others may be cut in generally appropriate proportions; none are precise imitations
of any of the pieces in the collection. As to Hobson's suggestion that the porcelains
came to Ardebil as the gift of the Wan-li emperor, all the evidence that has come to
light since that article was written, including the fact that porcelains were included in
the Turkish booty removed from Tabriz as early as 15 14, points to the fact that Chinese
porcelains must have been known and used in Iran for generations by the time Shah
'Abbas made his gift; and no doubt this collection was in the process of formation over
a period of many years. It is difficult to credit the suggestion that it all came at one time.
And finafly it is curious to note that none of the early observers from Olearius to Sarre
seems to have noticed the dedicatory inscription of Shah 'Abbas which appears on
most of the pieces.
2° Sarre, Denkmdler, vol. 2, p. 41.
Sarre, The Holy Shrine of Ardebil.
ROUTES FROM CHINA TO IRAN
Not the least interesting of the questions surrounding this collection is that
relating to the routes by which it reached Iran. The suggestion that it came en bloc as
a present from the Emperor Shen-tsung to Shah 'Abbas need not be given serious
consideration; and it seems hkely that it came westward from China by land and by
sea, a little at a time, over a period that may well be measurable in centuries. While
it is possible that now and then a piece may have come west as a present from a
Chinese to an Iranian or Turkic visitor in China, most of it probably made the journey
as trade goods exported from the land of its origin on a purely commercial basis.
Commerce between eastern and western Asia was nothing new, and Chinese porcelain
had long been known in the Near East. Many literary references testify to the esteem
in which this remarkable material was held by Arab and Persian ahke.''
The celebrated Persian philosopher and scientist Al-Blruni (A.D. 973-1048)
described the methods used by the Chinese in preparing the clay and glazing the wares
in his Al-Jumahir fi Ma'rifat al-Jawahir as early as A.D. 1000; and in the same work
he reported that these vessels were imported from Yang-chou. In the home of a friend
in Ray he saw "vases, sugar-basins, wash-basins, plates, jugs and drinking-cups — nay,
even ewers, cups, censers, lamp-stands and lamp-holders and other utensils, all made
of Chinese porcelain and I was amazed at his good taste in all that elegance" and all
these must have been wares of early Sung or earher. In Damascus more than 300
years later, Ibn Battuta (A.D. 1304-1377) the Arab traveler saw on the street a small
slave who "dropped and broke a Chinese porcelain dish, and the people said 'Gather
up the pieces and take them to the custodian of the endowments for utensils.' " This
he did, and he was given enough to buy a similar dish and so avoided being beaten or
scolded by his master ' '; and later on when he reached China, Battuta gave a short
account of the manufacture of pottery and referred to the Chinese as the finest of all
makes.
Instances like these need not be multiplied; there is abundant evidence that
"Cf. p. 17.
Cf. Kahle, Islamische Quellen zum chinesischen Porzellan, for an extensive study of these
references; only a few selected examples are given here.
^* Krenkow, The oldest western accounts of Chinese porcelain, pp. 464-465. This article is
based on an erroneous assumption and hence is unreliable; but there seems no reason to doubt his
translation of this passage from Al-Blruni.
Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and Africa, p. 70.
Op. cit., pp. 282-283.
19
20
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
porcelain was there, and the more difficult matter is the determination of the routes by
which it came. In fact, so complex is this problem that it cannot be properly ap-
proached without a long prehminary program of research into the original sources,
both Chinese and Persian; and as we already know, procelain, much as it may have
been admired, was not always the subject of such extensive comment as scholars today
might hope for. So the story will only emerge gradually as a sentence from one author
and a phrase from another are painstakingly ferreted out and pieced together. For
the present we must be content with a handful of hints gathered from various sources
which permit us to reconstruct a rough outhne of the means by which these porcelains
moved between China and the West; and because we are here principally concerned
with the collection from the Ardebil Shrine, most of which was blue-and-white, we may
set our Umits between the period of the earUest wares of the type and the terminal date
of the collection, or roughly the two and a half centuries between A.D. 1350 and 1600.
Evidence for the land routes is meagre, but two great travel diaries of the early
fifteenth century provide a certain amount of light. Between 1403 and 1406 Ruy
Gonzalez de Clavijo undertook an embassy from Henry III of Castile to the court of
Timur whom he found in residence at Samarqand preparing for the conquest of
China, an attempt that was forestalled only by his death less than three months after
the departure of the Spanish ambassador. Clavijo's report is filled with details of
absorbing interest; but we may confine our comments here to the fact that he observed
the use at feasts of "large trencherlike basins, these some of gold and some of silver,
while others were of vitrified earthenware, or else what is known as porcelain, and
these last are much esteemed and of very high price"; and he notes also the presence of
wine vessels of about 60 gallons' capacity though he fails to mention the material. If
these were porcelain they were much larger than anything known from that period
and would have been extremely heavy and cumbersome to transport. Shortly before
his arrival, a caravan of some 800 camels had come in from China only to be interned
by Timur; and Clavijo was able to ascertain that the capital of China, which he called
Cambaluc as did the Mongols,^® was six months' journey from Samarqand. As that
Timurid capital in turn lay some two months east of such Persian centers as Qazvin
and Tabriz, it seems likely that porcelains traveling by the central Asian route were
eight months or so on the way.
A more detailed itinerary is provided by the journal of an embassy sent by
Timur's son and successor Shah Rokh to the court of Peking in the years 1419-
Clavijo, Embassy to Tamerlane, esp. pp. 218-300.
Cf. p. 13, n. 18, for the capacity of the largest type of sixteenth-century porcelain.
^» By the time of Clavijo, the Ming capital had been at Nanking for 35 years and in 1403 was
again moved north to the old Cambaluc now renamed Peking. There are other unexplained lapses
in his journal such as his reference to the emperor of China as "Chays Khan," a name that remains
to be explained. Cf. Pelliot, TP, 27 (1930) -.443.
ROUTES FROM CHINA TO IRAN
21
1422 and before launching into an account of the journey itself the author describes
the arrival of ambassadors from China to Herat bearing gifts including satin, velvet,
and porcelain vases. A former embassy having been given a gray horse, the next em-
bassy brought back a portrait of this horse by a Chinese painter, and there seems to
have been abundant traffic between the Ming and Timurid rulers at this time. On its
return this latter embassy was accomphshed by representatives of Shah Rokh to the
emperor of China; and after a good deal of preliminary formality they set out from
Herat on 16 Zu-l-Qa'da 822 (5 December 1419). Through Balkh and Samarqand
into "the lands of the Mongols," they passed Tashkent, Sairam, Ashpara, and Amalik
to reach the ancient Buddhist oasis of Turfan on 8 Jumada II 823 (21 June 1420).
Proceeding via Karakhodja and Hami, they reached Su-chou on 14 Shaban (25
August) and this they describe as the first Chinese city on the route here in the
midst of the desert they were given a banquet which impressed them immensely:
goose, chicken and meats, and dried fresh fruits were served them in porcelain dishes
on tables decorated with artificial flowers and greenery. And from here on the journal
abounds in glowing descriptions of the wonders of China, with comments on every-
thing from the splendor of the temples with their colossal gilt images to the beauty of
the women. They traveled on through Kan-chou, across the Yellow River down to
Hsi-an-fu and northeast again to Peking (still called Khanbalik), which they reached
on 8 Zu-l-Hijja (15 December), a year and ten days after the departure from Herat.
This schedule tends to clarify the estimate of Clavijo; his six months from Samarqand
to China was about right; it took the embassy of Shah Rokh five months and ten days
from there to Su-chou, and seven months to the Yellow River. The pace of the
caravan is leisurely.
On the return journey they varied the route by traveling south of the Taklamakan
Desert via Khotan and Kashgar; and both the northern and southern roads were evi-
dently in common use as they had been in the time of Hsiian-tsang eight centuries
earlier. As for the porcelains which must have accompanied the westward journeys of
such missions, some may have gone along as the private baggage of individuals, but
most of it probably moved on the camels of traveling merchants, for in accordance
with age-old custom the huge caravans were made up of any number of smaller parties,
each bent on its own business but banded together for common safety on the perilous
crossing of the mountain and desert wastes of Central Asia.
Writing early in the sixteenth century 'All Ekber, who had traveled to China and
spent some time in Peking, does not describe his journey but only remarks that from
*° A bibliographic history of this work by Abderrazak Samarqandi is given by Quatremere,
Memoires historiqiies sur la vie du Sultan Schah-rokh, and the journal is translated by the same
author in Notices et extraits des mamiscrites de la bibliotheque , vol. 14, pt. 1.
The embassy was actually within the borders of China when it reached Hami 24 days earher.
Cf. Herrmann, Atlas of China, pp. 54-55, for the complete route.
22
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
the lands of Islam there are three land routes to China: one through Kashmir, one
through Khotan, and one through "MoghoUstan, the land of Chaghatay." His
definition leaves something to be desired. A route through Kashmir might lead through
Khotan as well, or, if taken farther north before making the eastern swing, it could lead
to the Kucha-Turf an-Hami road north of the desert; and either one could be described
as passing through what he calls "MoghoUstan, the land of Chaghatay." All he tells
us in effect is that in his time, as earlier, both the northern and southern routes were in
use. As to the time, he reports that "from the banks of the river Jaihun (Amu Darya
or Oxus) to the boundaries of Khitai is a distance of three months, every day a stage
about twice the march of the army of his majesty, the Conqueror of the World." "
This is shorter than the journey of the Shah Rokh embassy but may only reflect a
difference in travel conditions or in the habits of individual caravans.
A group of documents translated more than 150 years ago throws light of
another kind on the central Asian trade of these times. This is a series of 17 letters
from various Mushm princes to the emperor of China enumerating the presents they
offer and stating the kinds of things they hope to get in return." Four of them ask for
porcelain, and as they bear directly on our problem they are quoted here. The numbers
are those of Amiot.
( 9 ) "Shan-si-ting, envoy of the Kingdom of Tu-lu-fan (Turf an ) , dares to present
himself before your Majesty to offer him in tribute two horses of the western lands and
one camel. I most humbly beg your Majesty to do me the kindness of accepting them,
and to have the goodness to have given to me some pieces of satin brocaded with gold,
and some pieces of porcelain such as cups, plates and dishes, etc. I hope you will not
disapprove the liberty I take, and that you will give your orders in conformity with my
request."
(12) "Sha-chu-ting of T'ien-fang (Mecca) dares to present himself before the
great emperor to offer him in tribute a hundred and fifty pounds of jade stone and ten
horses of the western lands. I beg of your Majesty to have given to me some pieces of
satin of different colors, some tea leaves, and some pieces of porcelain. I hope you
Kahle, Eine islamische Quelle iiber China um 1500, gives a full account of 'All Ekber's
journal, the Khitai Nameh. See note 254, p. 122 below.
*^ The reference is to the Ottoman Sultan, either Selim I or his successor Suleyman I. 'All
Ekber dedicated his book to the former, who died before the work was finished, whereupon the
author wrote a second dedication to Suleyman.
"Amiot, Memoires concernant les . . . chinois, vol. 14, 1789, p. 241. Father Amiot does
not reveal the source of these letters, but Bretschneider, Medieval researches, vol. 2, p. 149, says
"they are preserved in the Szyi kuan [I?g^gt?]> a book pubHshed in the fifteenth century in the lin-
guistic office at Peking, estabUshed in 1407 for diplomatic purposes." The SsH-i-kuan-k'ao, based
on a Ming manuscript version of this work, was pubhshed by Lo Chen-yii in 1924.
ROUTES FROM CHINA TO IRAN
23
will have consideration for my petition and give your orders in conformity of my
desire."
(16) The same man as in (9) above makes the same offering and asks for satin
brocaded with gold and some vases of porcelain.
(17) "Sa-chu-ting, your slave, Envoy of the Kingdom of Sa-ma-erh-han (Samar-
qand) presents himself before the supreme Emperor. I have come to prostrate myself
before the golden door of your august Palace, and, having struck my forehead on the
ground, to offer you in tribute 50 pounds of jade stone and 500 small knives. I most
humbly beg your Majesty to have the goodness to not disdain my homage and to
please have given to me some pieces of satin brocaded with gold, and some pieces of
porcelain, and other things. I hope your Majesty will please give orders in conform-
ance with the petition I make to him."
Commenting on these letters Father Amiot points out that "what is called tribute
is properly an exchange of some merchandise for other things more valuable. It is
Chinese poUcy to keep those whom they call tributary in their debt, heaping them with
benefits; and it is in their interest not to grant them benefits except in the form of
recompense; and it is part of their greatness not to give recompense except in regulated
terms."
These are but a few of the many missions that crossed Central Asia in Ming times.
Referring only to Samarqand and places farther west, Bretschneider Usts close to a
hundred specific missions in addition to those cases where they are reported to have
gone "every year" or "frequently." " They are pretty well distributed through the
length of the dynasty: Hung-wu 12+, Yung-lo 24+, Hsuan-te 6, Cheng-t'ung 6,
Ching-t'ai 2, T'ien-shun 4, Ch'eng-hua 6+, Hung-chih 6, Cheng-te 5+, Chia-ching
12+, and Wan-li 10+, so that porcelains of all periods must have reached the Near
Eastern markets when they were new; and even a relatively small shipment each time
would account for a considerable accumulation of Ming wares by the end of the Wan-li
period.
But land routes provided only half the means of contact between China and the
Near East; and the weight and bulk of porcelain being what they are, that commodity
is much more suited for transportation in the holds of ships than on the packsaddles of
camels, and so further information may be sought in the records of the maritime trade.
Although it was written about the middle of the thirteenth century, a hundred years
before the earhest wares in the Ardebil Collection were made, the Chu-fan-chih
of Chao Ju-kua Mt^riS must be mentioned as the classic compilation on the
*^ Medieval researches, vol. 2, pp. 256-309. Most numerous were embassies to or from
Samarqand, Khorasan, Badakshan, Herat, Shiraz, Mecca, and Rum (Turkey). A most curious fact
is that ambassadors from the latter country included porcelain vases among the articles brought as
tribute to China in 1548 and 1554; one would like to have more details on this remarkable trans-
action.
24
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
history of the subject up to its time." Discussing the countries that traded with
China, and the history of relations in each case, he also describes the products peculiar
to each and Hsts the Chinese things they hked to receive in exchange; in the latter cate-
gory porcelain is mentioned on a number of occasions. Referring to an even earlier
work, the P'ing-chou-k'o-t'an WM'^tM of Chu Yu written in the first quarter of
the twelfth century,*' the translators in their introduction give some interesting details
about the make-up of fleets and the practical aspects of shipping out of Canton, among
which the following is pertinent: "The greater part of the cargo consists of pottery,
the small pieces packed in the larger, till there is not a crevice left." Thus even in
Northern Sung times pottery seems to have been sent abroad in some quantity.
Most of the countries mentioned by Chau Ju-kua are in eastern Asia, southeast
Asia, and India, but a few of the more westerly lands are included providing evidence
that the Cliinese of Sung times were in commercial contact by sea with Arabia, Iran,
Egypt, and the African coast. Zanzibar, curiously enough, is the only one of these
latter which is mentioned as receiving porcelain in trade, and the author reports that
it was shipped there from Gujerat and the coastal towns of Arabia." On the whole,
because of the early date of his text, Chau Ju-kua is only of marginal interest to our
immediate problem, but the work contains a wealth of background material showing
that by the time the fourteenth-century and later porcelains which are the subject of
tliis study were being shipped westward, maritime trade between China and the Near
East was already an old story.
Most of this shipping was in the hands of Arabs, and it was only in the early
fifteenth century that large-scale maritime operations were launched by the Chinese.
These were the great voyages sponsored by the Ming emperor Ch'eng-tsu and carried
out in his own reign and that of his successor (Yung-lo and Hsiian-te; the Hung-hsi
reign was of no consequence) which were the most important naval expeditions in
Chinese history spreading the prestige of the Ming Dynasty to distant lands and bring-
ing home vastly increased first-hand knowledge of the world.*" Most famous are the
seven voyages commanded by the eunuch Cheng Ho in 1405-1407, 1408-1411,
1412-1415, 1416-1419, 1421-1422, 1424-1425, and 1430-1433; and for our pres-
ent purpose it need only be noted that the third, fourth, and last of these included
Ormuz among the ports of call. This island commanding the entrance to the Persian
Gulf was also the port of entry to that country for all seagoing trade, and while specific
■'''Hirth and Rockhill, Chau Ju-kua, St. Petersburg, 1911, is the complete translation of this
work; cf. also Pelliot's extensive review in TP, 13 (1912): 446-481.
" Op. cit., p. 16, n. 1 (second note).
Op. cit., p. 126. No doubt it was transshipped at those places, having come there from China.
■"^ Duyvendak, Ma Huan re-examined, Pelliot, Les grandes voyages maritimes chinois du
debut du XV siecle, TP 30 (1933): 237-452, and Duyvendak, The true dates . . . , TP 34
(1938-39): 341-412, are the most up-to-date and exhaustive studies of the accounts of these
voyages; in these articles will be found reference to all previous studies and translations.
ROUTES FROM CHINA TO IRAN
25
references to porcelain are wanting there can be little doubt that this material was
included among the cargoes traded at that port. These goods then made their way to
the cities of the Iranian plateau by caravan, a journey which Clavijo, reporting on
Sultanlyeh, describes as taking 60 days/"
Less seems to be known of the trade in the latter part of the fifteenth century, and
by the beginning of the sixteenth the seas were pretty well controlled by the Portuguese
who continued the shipping. In 1514 they took Ormuz, thus gaining control of the
maritime commerce of Iran; under their rule it became one of the fabulously rich ports
of the East and remained so until 1622 when they were driven out by Shah 'Abbas
with Enghsh help.""*
This in brief outline describes the ways by which the Ardebil porcelains moved
westward from China to Iran and the means by which they were transported. Many
questions are unanswered; and as has been suggested they may remain so for a long
time because of the casual way in which the cargoes and shipments are described and
the matter-of-fact light in which the Chinese regarded porcelain. For general purposes,
however, this is almost enough; porcelain was in Iran in early times, commercial inter-
course by land and sea is well documented, and though more specific details would
add color to the picture, the answer to the question "How did it get there?" is clearly
in our hands.
•'"Clavijo, op. cit., p. 161.
Additional information on the sea trade may be found in T'ien-tse Chang, Sino-Portuguese
trade from 1514 to 1644, Leyden, 1934, and T. Volker, Porcelain and the Dutch East India Com-
pany, Leiden {sic), 1954, though neither is specifically concerned with the trade between China and
Iran. It is a source of particular regret that Volker's book was unknown to me until after my manu-
script was completed. Although he deals largely with a period after the dedication of the Ardebil
porcelains he gives many valuable data, reference to which would have enriched the present text.
MARGINALIA ON THE STUDY OF MING PORCELAIN
THE EVALUATION OF CHINESE SOURCES
It is not surprising that the nineteenth century, which witnessed the first great
flowering of scientific research in so many fields, should have come to a close with the
publication of the first major contribution to the study of Chinese porcelain. Nor is it
surprising that Stephen W. Bushell, the author of the monumental Oriental ceramic
art,'"^ should, as a scientific man himself and a younger contemporary of such giants as
Darwin, Huxley, and Pasteur, have been inspired to make an intensive search into all
the original source materials he could lay his hands on to prepare a solid basis for his
investigations. He was by no means the first to venture into the field; in 1877 Sir
Augustus Franks had published the catalogue of his extensive collection and in
1881 Du Sartel had brought out his sumptuous La porcelaine de Chine, the product of
his fascinated devotion to the porcelains with which he had surrounded himself, and
the first de luxe volume in Europe on Chinese porcelain. Both men in turn leaned
heavily upon the Ching-te-chen-t'ao-lu i^^HPS^^ as partially translated by Stanis-
las Julien in the first important attempt to make a Chinese source available in a
European language. Bushell, however, went to a slightly earlier work, the Tao-shuo
hy Chu Yen the first Chinese book to deal solely with the subject of ce-
ramics, which was published in 1774 and which not only included the author's own
This is the catalogue of the Walters Collection which appeared in 10 large folio volumes
with 160 color plates and over 400 illustrations in black and white in 1897. The text was published
as a separate volume in 1899, and all references are to that edition.
Franks, Catalogue of a collection of oriental porcelain and pottery. On pp. ix-x of the
second edition, the one to which I have access, he lists the earlier works he has consulted.
Julien, S., Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, Paris, 1856. The T'ao-lu, as it
will be referred to hereafter, was written by Lan P'u ^?{| and contains a preface by Liu Ping fij^"
and a postface by Cheng T'ing-kuei both dated in correspondence with 1815. The work
has since been fully translated into English by Geoffrey R. Sayer, Ching-te-chen t'ao-lu, London,
1951.
^* The Tao-shuo bears an undated preface by Ch'iu Yueh-hsiu and postfaces by the
author's kinsman Chu Wen-tsao ^3^^^ and by the eminent bibliophile Pao T'ing-po Sg,?^]^ both
dated in 1774. Another edition, apparently very rare, bears a preface by Hsieh Chao-huang ^fig^
dated in accordance with 1782. This was first seen by Pelliot in the Rumyancov Museum in Mos-
cow (cf. TP, 22 (1923): 45-46), and in 1938 I discovered another copy in the library of the
Sinological Institute in Leiden; one of my own copies was printed from the same blocks as the
latter and although fragmentary, in that it unfortunately lacks that preface, is identical in every
other respect. A third edition has a postface of 1787 by Huang Hsi-fan ^^H^; and this is included
27
28
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
knowledge as a connoisseur but also drew heavily upon all the sources at his disposal,
more than 100 titles from which he quoted freely if not always accurately." Working
with Chu Yen's text as he did over a period of years, Bushell achieved a considerable
familiarity with the literature of his subject, and his translations into English have been
standard fare in all books on Chinese ceramics since liis time.
But Bushell worked under two handicaps. He lacked the critical apparatus of
modern sinology, and his first-hand contact with ceramic wares dating from periods
earlier than the Ch'ing Dynasty must of necessity have been somewhat limited. This
is in no way to his discredit; he simply lived too early, and the fact that he accom-
pUshed what he did, that in spite of these obstacles his book should still be an essential
tool at the elbow of every student more than half a century later, but adds to his stat-
ure. Except for certain types of Ming wares that had been known abroad ever since
Ming times, very few pieces of pre-Ch'ing date were seen in the West until after the
turn of the century. True connoisseurship began with Hobson,'**' and his first-hand
knowledge of a wide range of wares combined with Bushell's knowledge of many texts
to form the cornerstone of what we know today. But while many have undertaken to
continue where Hobson left off, and great quantities of new material have come to
light from a variety of sources to add to our first-hand knowledge, the translations of
Bushell are still being quoted without change or criticism. Only a single voice has
been raised to call attention to this curious lapse, and that appears to have been a voice
crying in the wilderness.
As long ago as 1937 Sir Percival David took an immense step forward when he
pubHshed his analysis of the relative merits to be found in the principal Chinese sources
on ceramics and gave us some idea of the complex bibhographic problems involved.^^
Remarking that "there is still today an uncritical and almost indiscriminate accept-
ance of all these various texts," he launched into a most thorough and penetrating
study of the source materials he encountered in his search for new light on Ju ware;
in the latest edition I have seen which ends with a postface by Wei Ching-yii dated in
the twentieth year of the Republic (1931). Sir Percival David has discussed the history of the
T'ao-shuo and the T'ao-lu at some length in Artibus Asiae 12, 3 (1949): 165-182, but does not
seem to have seen this last edition. Chu's given name is written ^ in his book, but his biographers
use the variant orthographies and s-^ .
Cf. Oriental ceramic art, p. 664, where Bushell says "nearly a hundred and fifty different
authors are quoted." In his complete translation of the T'ao-shuo, which appeared posthumously
in 1910 under the title Description of Chinese pottery and porcelain, he says, "I have collected a
hundred and five of the principal of these titles" (p. ix), but he includes the T'ao-hi which appeared
only in 1815 and could hardly have been seen by Chu Yen! (p. 173).
Chinese pottery and porcelain, 2 vols., 1915, is the locus classicus; and for Ming wares
especially it is The wares of the Ming dynasty, 1923.
commentary on Ju ware, TOCS, 14 (1936-1937): 18-69. He and Pelliot had akeady
exploded the myth of Hsiang's album, TOCS, 11 (1933-1934): 22-47; TP, 32 (1936): 15-58;
TP, 33 (1937): 91-94.
EVALUATION OF CHINESE SOURCES
29
and although his problem at the moment centered on one particular kind of Sung
pottery, the resulting paper is required reading for anyone who seeks to investigate
what the Chinese themselves have written about the ceramic practices of early times.
Unfortunately there is little evidence that this required reading has been done, and
books on one phase or another of our subject continue to appear all richly flavored
with that "uncritical and almost indiscriminate acceptance of all these various texts"
against which Sir Percival warned us 17 years ago. In respect to Ming porcelain,
which is the principal concern of the present volume, this practice has been particularly
widespread; again and again the T'ao-shuo and the T'ao-lu and their sources have
been quoted until the repetition rings like a refrain through book after book, and as
the reader progresses through the chapters on the several Ming reigns he can hardly
expect any surprises but only be quite sure he already knows many of the sentences
that he in store for him. In the same years that have witnessed this awe-inspiring flood
of redundancy, hundreds of new porcelains have come to light and have taken their
places in the pubhc and private collections of Europe and America; first-hand knowl-
edge of the wares themselves has increased accordingly, and the positive contribution
of these writers has been the illustration and description of a wealth of new material
which has done much to facihtate comparative study and contribute to the develop-
ment of standards of judgment. The repeated parroting of the same old quotations
translated from the same old Chinese sources, occurring as it does in the midst of these
otherwise interesting expositions of new material and fresh and often provocative
ideas, sounds a curiously incongruous note. It will continue to do so unless and until
the original texts are examined with a critical eye and evaluated in terms of their in-
herent authority and the relevance of any particular passage to the problem on which
it is brought to bear.
For these reasons the discussion of the porcelains in the Ardebil Collection which
begins in the next chapter will contain only a Hmited number of such references, and
in each case the source will be subjected to as critical a scrutiny as possible. But first
a few general observations may not be out of place concerning the value of those two
old standbys, the T'ao-shuo and the T'ao-lu, as sources of information on the subject
of our present study, the porcelains of the Ming Dynasty. In terms of chronology
alone one cannot but regard them with suspicion; an opinion on a Yung-lo or Hsiian-te
bowl by an eighteenth-century writer carries about as much weight as does a critical
analysis by Horace Walpole of a painting by Giotto. Beyond the fact that it throws
some light on the connoisseurship of the time, it is worthless. Obviously we who write
today are even farther removed from our subject, but on the other hand this increased
remoteness in time and space is more than compensated for by other factors. In the
matter of textual sources, although we always complain we have so few, we are in a
better position than the eighteenth-century authors to evaluate what we have; and,
more important than that, every student of our day can hold in his hand and study at
30
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
his leisure more Ming porcelains than Chu Yen and Lan P'u between them are Ukely
ever to have seen. These two were gentlemen and scholars in the Chinese tradition;
but hke others of their ilk they had a wide variety of interests, and the fact that each
wrote a book on porcelain does not necessarily mean that they specialized in that sub-
ject. No doubt they collected in a small way, and one Ukes to think of comfortable
evenings spent over a few pots of the yellow wine of Shao-hsing when they and their
friends wrote verses, painted landscapes, and passed around for admiration a newly
acquired bowl, maybe a K'ang-hsi piece or perhaps on rare occasions, one dating back
as far as one of the Ming reigns.
As for the men themselves, nothing at all seems to be known of Lan P'u beyond
the brief references in the prefaces to the T'ao-lu by Liu Ping and Cheng T'ing-kuei.
The latter states that Lan's manuscript had lain forgotten in a trunk for 20 years, or
since 1795, and his laudatory remarks are no more than the customary formalities em-
ployed by a Chinese scholar when speaking of his teacher. Chu Yen, on the other
hand, is immortaHzed in no less than five biographies: (a) Chung-kuo-jen-ming-ta-
tz'u-tien ^^K^kH^^, p. 255a; (b) Kuo-ch'ao-shih-jen-cheng-luehm^WAWL9&,
chiian 40, p. 17v4-10; (c) Hsu-yin-jen-chuan ^PPA^, chiian 5, pp. 9r9-10r4; (d)
Ch'ing-hua-chia-shih-shih ^p|S^^£, pp. 29v7-30v9; and (e) Mo-hsiang-chii hua-
shih M^^Sii, chiian 4, pp. 2r7-2v4. All agree that he was a native of Hai-yen
in Chekiang Province and that he took his Chin-shih degree in 1766, but beyond that
they become confusing, (a) and (b) say that he served as an official in Fu-p'ing-chih
Hsien -f-^^^, a place not recorded in Chung-kuo-ku-chin-ti-ming-ta-tz'u-tien
"^^-i^fe^A^*:; (d) says he served in Fu-ch'eng-chih Hsien ^^^^ which is like-
wise unrecorded; and (c) and (e) assign his service to Fu-ch'eng in Chihli Prov-
ince, a name which leads to further complications because it may refer to either one of
two places. To abandon this unrewarding track, however, and return to more perti-
nent matters, none of the biographies Hnks him in any way with Jao-chou or Ching-te
Chen where both Chu Wen-tsao and Pao T'ing-po in their prefaces tell us he spent
some time studying the methods of porcelain manufacture; nor do they refer to the
official post in Kiangsi Province which Pao tells us gave him the opportunity to pursue
that study. Further, while the biographies allude to his literary and antiquarian in-
terests and list some of the titles of his writings, only two, (a) and (b), mention the
T'ao-shiio at all. In one or another they quote from his poetry, cite his proficiency in
landscape painting, and refer to his interest in seals, in inks, and in calligraphy; but
never a word about ceramics. In spite of the excellent recommendations of Chu Wen-
tsao and Pao T'ing-po who were, it must be remembered, his kinsman and his publisher
respectively, these serious lacunae in his credentials on the part of five biographers
can hardly be overlooked.
While Chu and Lan may well have enjoyed a considerable familiarity with the
Ch'ing wares and especially those of their own great Ch'ien-lung period, it is hard to
EVALUATION OF CHINESE SOURCES
31
imagine that they could have seen and handled more than a few Ming wares from any
one reign. Museums were unknown in eighteenth-century China; the great shipments
of fine porcelain that went annually to Peking lay inaccessible behind the walls of the
Forbidden City, and all they could possibly have seen were the private collections of a
handful of scholars who might have accumulated a few dozens of pieces each. In these
circumstances their knowledge of Ming porcelain must have been extremely limited;
and indeed as we study Chu Yen's text it sounds more and more like hearsay when-
ever it is not straight quotation. Rarely does he give the impression of a man describ-
ing something he has seen. Writing of this kind has its place in the scheme of things
and is not to be dismissed completely; it provides a valuable record of the connoisseur-
ship of the period if only it be treated as such and not as a factual account of the na-
ture of Ming porcelain. Moreover it throws a heavy burden of responsibility on the
written sources it quotes, and for that reason it is pertinent here to examine briefly
some of the latter.'®
Chapters three and six of the T'ao-shuo are devoted to the wares of the Ming
Dynasty, and in them Chu Yen has quoted from more than 20 separate works. If we
set aside those compiled in the Ch'ing Dynasty and therefore suspect as first-hand
sources on chronological grounds alone and those from which the quotations are not
descriptive but merely supply collateral comment, there are eight Ming texts which
undertake to discuss Ming porcelain. Two of these are local records: the Chiang-hsi-
ta-chih tt® AiS, which Bushell ascribes to a certain Wang Tsung-mu of the early
sixteenth century,'' and the Yu-ch'ang-ta-shih-chi S^;^^fe by Kuo Tzu-ch'ang
M^M, who received his Chin-shih degree in the Lung-ch'ing period (1567-1573).''°
The former is given as the source of a long list of Chia-ching wares in chapter six,"
and this may be a rehable repertory of the types of wares produced at that time, al-
though the lack of bibliographic data makes it impossible to say whether it suffered any
revisions or modifications in the more than two centuries between the time it is as-
sumed to have been compiled and the time Chu Yen used it; and if there were subse-
An exhaustive analysis of the sources of the T'ao-shuo has long been needed, but such a
study has no place in the present volume. It is an exacting and time-consuming task rendered even
more difficult at the moment by the inaccessibility of the great Ubraries of China. In the hope of
making a start, however, I have examined those sources quoted in Chu Yen's chapters on Ming
wares to the extent that they are available to me. This work has been greatly facihtated by Sir
Percival David's important bibliographic study {op. cit.), and without reviewing the intricate prob-
lems on which he has thrown so much Hght I limit myself here to certain general remarks about
these books and their authors. See also Bushell's bibliographic notes in Oriental ceramic art, p.
650ff.
Cf. Description of Chinese pottery and porcelain, p. 173.
I have not seen either of these books, nor have I been able to identify Wang Tsung-mu. A
biography of Kuo Tzu-ch'ang appears in CKJMTTT, p. 1043d.
"^Bushell, op. cit., pp. 144-151.
32
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
quent editions, as was the case with most local histories, there is no way of telling
which one was available to Chu. The Yu-cli'ang-ta-shih-clii suffers from the same ob-
scurity, but one quotation referring to the sixteenth year of the Wan-U reign (1588)''
indicates that it must be later than that, and thus the author's remarks about the "In-
terregnum" were written more than a hundred years after the events he described.
Chu Yen's remaining Ming sources are all short chapters or even sentences from
general works on antiques,*"* works in which the subject of porcelain plays no more
than a minor role. The authors, like Chu himself, were gentlemen scholars, dilettantes
who dabbled in such a wide variety of subjects as archaic inscriptions, seals, inkstones,
musical instruments, bronzes, jades, and paintings, and who may also have been small
collectors in these fields. In every one of the books quoted, however, the mention of
porcelain is Httle more than incidental, and there is no evidence that any one of the
authors took the subject seriously or pretended to make more than the most casual
observations.'''* They are the superficial work of amateurs who wrote to while away
the time; and in one case it is known that the author was simply amusing himself after
several failures in the public examinations, a circumstance hardly calculated to inspire
the confidence of his readers.'" On the whole, in spite of the fact that they were written
in the Ming Dynasty, these works deserve no more credence than does that of Chu Yen
who cited them.
The final evaluation of these Chinese texts on ceramics must await a more
thoroughgoing analysis than has yet been undertaken, and this brief discussion serves
only to provide an objective viewpoint from which they may be seen in proper per-
spective. They are neither fallible nor infallible in their entirety; they have served a
very useful purpose in providing hints and suggestions during those early days of
awakening interest in pre-Ch'ing ceramics when there was nothing else to work with.
But they no longer carry the authority they were given half a century ago. Knowing
something of the circumstances in which they were written and understanding the in-
terests and limitations of their authors, we can see their weaknesses; and the time has
Bushell, op. cit., pp. 63-64.
«2 Op. cit., p. 61. See below, p. 101.
Ko-ku-yao-hm Shih-wu-kan-chu ^J^^t^. Ch'ing-pi-tsang f^^^, Ni-ku-lu
W.'^M' Po-wu-yao-lan and T'ung-ya -f^fi.
^5 The exception to this is the Po-wu-yao-lan, which Chu quotes most frequently and which
must have in it a long section on pottery. I have never seen the original of this work which, on
chronological grounds, to have been quoted by Chu Yen, must have been that compiled by Ku T'ai
in the T'ien-ch'i period (1621-1627). The commonly available version is that published by
LiT'iao-yiian ^^jt in the second edition of his Han-hai which appeared only in 1801;
and this is not the proper Po-wu-yao-lan but a modified version of a work called Ku-tung-chih
'i'S^S with the title changed. (Cf. David, op. cit., pp. 39-40, 43-46). The fact that this latter
work contains a longer passage on pottery than any of these other works is irrelevant to a study of
Chu Yen's Ming sources.
David, Commentary on Ju, p. 38.
"IMPERIAL" WARES
33
long since passed when anything is to be gained by trying to force the Ming porcelains
we know today into the patterns outlined by these gentlemen and scholars of the Ming
and Ch'ing.
"IMPERIAL" WARES
Turning from the texts to the porcelains themselves we come to another problem
which merits a greater degree of objective consideration than it has received so far.
This is the question of the so-called "Imperial" wares. It is known that certain porce-
lains were made in response to orders from Peking and destined for use in the Palace;
and it has been customary among scholars and connoisseurs to think of these as "Im-
perial" wares and to try to single out the pieces that belong in this category from
among the great masses of porcelain that have come on the market in recent decades
and have made their way into pubUc and private collections. Although there are no
precise rules, certain criteria have come to be regarded as essential qualifications for
admission to this select circle. Quahty is given primary consideration, and to be called
"Imperial" a piece must always be of the finest. Secondly, it has been assumed that
such a piece should be marked with the nien-hao ^-W. or reign name in six characters.
And finally, when dragons appear in the decoration, it is considered that they must
have five claws on each foot if the piece is to have "Imperial" status.*''
In many instances these criteria are so interwoven that it is not easy to discuss
them separately. Quahty, which would seem at first glance to be the most obvious and
simple of the three to deal with, is in some ways the most difficult because it is a
relative matter based largely on experience; but so much good porcelain is available
today that the prevailing standard of judgment is high. Beyond this come matters of
taste, which are always highly individual and subject to disagreement; and further
complications arise from the fact that an object may be the finest of its kind in a cate-
gory somewhat below the top rank. Marks and dragons, on the other hand, lend them-
selves to more concrete discussion.
Before attacking the basic question of how far we are justified in making these
assumptions about "Imperial" wares, and, as will be shown, they are no more than
assumptions, it will be of interest to cite some specific examples of the occurrence
of marks and dragons of various kinds. It should be noted at the outset that no
acceptable fourteenth-century Ming mark has yet come to light,''^ and only three
Among some 1,500 pieces of Ming blue-and-white known to me, only about 150 are dec-
orated with dragons of any kind.
The Hung-wu nien-hao is seen on a number of porcelains, but I know of no case where it is
genuine. A well-known series of small dishes with landscapes and figures bear this mark — e.g.,
Philadelphia Catalogue, 1949, no. 149 (henceforth abbreviated PMA to refer to the catalogue of
the Ming blue-and-white exhibition held at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1949), and Oriental
Ceramic Society Catalogue, 1953, nos. 211, 212 (hereafter abbreviated OCS Catalogue, 1953); but
34
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
pieces which may be assignable to that period are decorated with 5-clawed dragons,"*^
and so our discussion begins with the wares made after 1400. Not one of the 200-
odd pieces of fiftenth-century blue-and-white in the Ardebil Collection carries a
nien-hao, in spite of the fact that a number of them are of the highest quality and
a few have properly marked counterparts in other collections. Certain of the white
wares and colored wares, on the other hand, carry Ch'eng-hua and Hung-chih marks;
and one of the finest blue-and-white pieces of all (29.403, pi. 50) is decorated
with a 5-clawed dragon. Among the sixteenth-century wares are several with proper
nien-hao; the great Cheng-te dish with Arabic script in the decoration (29.313, pis. 75
and 76) is the earliest, and there are marked Chia-ching and Wan-li pieces, some of
them decorated with 5-clawed dragons (e.g., 29.520, pi. 79) . If the generally accepted
criteria for "Imperial" wares are vaUd, it is difficult to explain the presence of these
pieces in the Ardebil Collection.
But there are equally puzzling problems among the blue-and-white wares that
have left China in more recent times. A kuan in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and
a pair of mei-p'ing in the William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art were exhibited to-
gether in Philadelphia in 1949,'" and this juxtaposition left no doubt that they belong
together. In material, potting, glaze, drawing, and in the quality of the blue the three
are evidently products of the same shop; and, as far as it is possible to judge, they give
every indication of having been made, painted, and fired at the same time. Each is
decorated with a single large and powerfully drawn dragon flying through cloud
scrolls with four monster masks on the shoulder above; between two of these masks, at
the top of the shoulder, each bears the mark of the Hsiian-te period written in four
characters in a horizontal fine. The only inconsistency as between the three is that the
dragon on the kuan has three claws while those on the mei-p'ing have five; yet no one
who has handled and studied these pieces has ventured to suggest that the latter are
these are all sixteenth century, as is the table screen illustrated by Reidemeister {Ming-Porzellane in
schwedischen Sammlimgen, pi. 1 ) . The mark appears again on a small deep bowl with almost vertical
sides in the David Collection (Hobson, 1934, pi. 115), a piece which seems ill suited to the early
Ming attribution it was given 20 years ago. The shape, more nearly related to that of the typical Raku
ware tea bowl than anything else, is well known in Japan in both Chinese and Japanese blue-and-
white (e.g., Kushi, pis. 47-49; Fujita Sale Catalogue, 1929, no. 314; Shima Sale Catalogue, 1934,
no. 138). The Japanese often refer to the ware as Gosii (or Goshu ^■^), a term which
raises its own problems but which in general means coarsely made blue-and-white produced in
the seventeenth century, and apparently having some traditional connection with the Tea Ceremony
(cf., e.g., Yamanaka Shokai, ^ome/i'w^e . . . intro., p. 3). Whether this bowl was made in China
or Japan is difficult to say; but the decoration of fighting cocks, rockery, and coxcomb in underglaze
blue and red is entirely in keeping with the repertory of the late Ming and early Ch'ing Transition
Period, and the similar bowl illustrated on the same plate and bearing the Yung-lo mark must date
from the same time. Both may well be seventeenth-century Chinese wares made for export to Japan.
See p. 80 below.
'° PMA, nos. 47, 48, 49.
"IMPERIAL" WARES
35
"Imperial" while the former is not. Still another example of the apparent contradic-
tion between the 4-character mark and the 5-clawed dragon occurs on number 72
in the same catalogue; and the very beautiful foliated brush washer (number 43 in the
same show) is of the highest quality in every respect, is decorated with 5-clawed
dragons and carries no mark at all.
Further examples may be found in the sixteenth century. While it is not clear that
"Imperial" status has been claimed for any of the Cheng-te pieces decorated with
Arabic script, all seem to be marked with six characters while most of those decorated
in the Chinese style are marked with four; and among the latter are several with 5-
clawed dragons in the decoration." This curious use of marks in the Cheng-te period
still awaits explanation." Chia-ching wares with 6-character marks and 5-clawed
dragons are not rare, but in most cases they are of indifferent quaHty ''; and while the
whole standard deteriorated in that reign, the pieces decorated with dragons are not
even the best products of their time.'* The same is true of Wan-li; and as will be seen
later, when we come to that period in the Ardebil Collection, these last two reigns saw
a steady decline in the quality of those wares which adhered to the traditional repertory
of decoration, what might be called "the dragon-phoenix-lotus-cloud-and-wave group,"
while the most skillful drawing is found on those wares in a newly developing style
then appearing for the first time. So, as the dynasty draws near its end, we are faced
with a curiously anomalous situation in which the very wares which seem to be made
for "Imperial" use on grounds of their nien-hao and of the 5-clawed dragons in their
decoration, if we are to honor the traditional belief, are actually the poorest of their
time, surpassed on every side by unmarked wares without dragons.
A final example may be cited to illustrate the sort of question that must be solved
before we can pretend to understand the real significance of the 5-clawed dragon in
porcelain decoration. Among the Wan-li pieces in the Oriental Ceramic Society ex-
hibition was an unusual type described as a "stove-jar," " which is decorated with 5-
clawed dragons over waves; and in a reserved panel on one side is a long inscription
dedicating the piece to a temple in Shansi and dating it in the forty-sixth year of Wan-li
(1618). So this is a case where 5-clawed dragons appear on a piece which is not only
not "Imperial," in the sense that it is not for the emperor, but is specifically designated
for provincial use.
These examples of the discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions en-
countered in trying to apply the three criteria of quality, marks, and 5-clawed dragons
" E.g., PMA, no. 101; OCS Catalogue, 1953, nos. 127 and 130 (the latter wrongly numbered
131 on pi. 11); Pope, Ming Porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art, p. 33, fig. 29.
" Cf. note 306 on p. 149.
" E.g., PMA, nos. 109 and 111. i
^* OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 160, represents the finest in Chia-ching blue-and-white. '
''^ OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 204. Lu-p'ing 'MM is the term used in the inscription.
36
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
to the identification of "Imperial" wares could be multiplied at length; but enough has
been said to show that something is wrong or at least that all is not so simple and
straight-forward as might seem to be the case in view of the light-hearted way in which
the term "Imperial" is bandied about. The "Imperial" implications of the 5-clawed
dragon have been common knowledge ever since the Western world began to learn
about China, but it is not clear just when it began to be assumed that the decoration
of porcelains was controlled in that respect. Jacquemart and Le Blant mentioned the
symbolism in 1862 but did not state that it was specifically apphcable to porcelain.
In 1888 Hippisley wrote, "The dragon thus intimately associated with the Emperor is
always depicted with five talons on each claw, and it is he alone, properly speaking, who
can use such a device upon his property; the dragon borne by princes of the blood has
but four talons on each claw" "; but went on to say that the distinction was not rigidly
maintained. Bushell, in his description of the dragon as an element of decoration
wrote, "The claws, originally three in number on each foot, were afterwards increased
to four and five, the last number being restricted to the imperial dragon of the last and
present dynasties, as brocaded on imperial robes and painted on porcelain made for
the use of the palace." Hobson cited the above passage from Hippisley in his first
great work,'" and since that time the idea has been adopted so universally that today
one seldom hears a discussion of a piece with dragon decoration in which the point is
not mentioned.
But not one of these writers, be it noted, has cited a Chinese text in support of
this theory which has gradually assumed the status of an axiom in the connoisseurship
of Chinese porcelain. The reason for this is obvious: no such text has yet been found.
In the T'ao-shuo, for all its shortcomings, there is more detailed information on the
decoration of Ming porcelain than in any other work,^° and dragons are mentioned
frequently but without any reference to the number of claws they have or to the fact
that they may have been reserved for the decoration of those wares destined for the use
of the emperor; and the Tao-lii is similarly silent. It seems curious, therefore, that a
notion of "Imperial" wares and of a set of standards by which they may be defined can
have become so firmly implanted when there is no reference to any such thing in the
very texts on which the whole indoctrination of two generations of scholars is based.
Strict prescriptions governed the decoration of court robes at various levels in the
official hierarchy, and the number of claws on dragons was one of many details that
were subject to regulation.'' It might be expected therefore that the statutes of the
''^ Histoire . . . de la porcelaine . . . , p. 226.
" A catalogue of the Hippisley collection of Chinese porcelains, p. 443.
Oriental ceramic art, p. 592.
Chinese pottery and porcelain, vol. 2, p. 292.
^° Especially in chilan 6.
*i Cammann, China's dragon robes, pp. 10-19.
"IMPERIAL" WARES
37
Ming Dynasty which provide this information would deal similarly with porcelain, but
this does not seem to be the case. A preliminary survey of the appropriate sections of
the Ta-ming-hui-tien :^BJJ#|| reveals only the most casual references to porcelain
throughout, and there is no evidence that it was held in any particular esteem at
court.*' In the section on works,*^ Kung-pu 21%, there are short chapters dealing with
the manufacture of tiles and pottery vessels, but these have no bearing on the present
problem. In the section on ceremonial, Li-pu t§.%, which occupies 64 chiian (42-
105), are detailed descriptions of the court rituals, and among the voluminous regula-
tions controlhng every phase of the many cermonies are frequent references to the
kinds of vessels to be employed. An overwhelming majority of them are gold and
silver, and scattered references to porcelain are almost incidental. One example may
be cited as typical; preparations for the sacrifices to deceased ancestors include the
following passage "they respectfully arrange three wine jars, eight gold libation
cups, sixteen porcelain libation cups, ..." From the standpoint of our study, this
is very disappointing, and in the whole section only one passage was noted in which
there is any reference to decoration. This sets forth the regulations for choice of ma-
terials from which wine vessels may be made in the following terms : "Princes of the
first and second ranks, for wine jars and wine cups may use gold; for the rest they may
use silver. The third rank to the fifth rank, for wine jars may use silver, for wine cups
may use gold. The sixth rank to the ninth rank, for wine jars and wine cups may use
silver; for all the rest they may use porcelain, lacquer and wood vessels; and they are
not permitted to use vermilion nor gold rims, gilding, carved jewels, nor dragon and
phoenix patterns. The masses, for wine jars may use pewter and for wine cups may
use silver; for the rest they may use porcelain and lacquer." Pending further study and
the finding of additional texts relating to the same subject, this seems to specify those
ranks which were permitted to use gold and silver in certain ways. The lowest group
of princes, those from the sixth to the ninth rank, could use no gold and could use silver
for wine jars and wine cups only, while all other utensils had to be of porcelain, lac-
quer, or wood; and they were prohibited from using, among other things, dragons and
phoenixes in the decoration. There is no indication that the higher ranks were forbid-
den to use porcelain if they wished; but the implication seems clear that it was not a
particularly desirable material, especially in view of the fact that it was classed with
lacquer and wood.
It would be premature to draw any final conclusions from this one regulation, and
an extensive investigation of other Ming texts must be undertaken before that can be
^- The edition I have used is that compiled by HsU P'u ^-i^}. (1428-1499) and printed in the
sixth year of Cheng- te (1511) in 180 chiian.
^'Chuan 157.
6* Chuan 81, 7v9.
85 Chiian 59, 2r7.
38
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
done. These two passages from the Ta-ming-hui-tien are cited only as examples of the
kind of information that may be expected to turn up. In keeping with the Chinese
documentary tradition, the statements are terse and not always easy to interpret clearly
today, although there is no doubt that they were perfectly intelligible to those who
wrote them and those who read them in Ming times. The reference to the dragon is a
case in point; no mention of the number of claws is made, but we cannot be sure today
that in Ming official terminology the word lung did not specifically mean "a dragon
with five claws on each foot" and not, as it does in the vernacular today and as it did
in the earlier dynasties, simply "dragons in general." What may turn up in the
long run is impossible to say, but for the time being it should be remembered that what
has been said and written thus far about "Imperial" porcelains is based only on dealers'
sales talk and on the writings of relatively recent authors. It will be of the greatest in-
terest when one day we learn the official view of this question in Ming times.
THE BEGINNINGS OF BLUE-AND-WHITE IN CHINA
It is not known when the Chinese first decorated white porcelain with painting in
underglaze blue. They themselves speak of Sung blue-and-white, and there are West-
ern students of the subject who seem inclined to agree, so that any discussion of the
origins of that type of decoration sooner or later leads back to the Sung Dynasty. The
fact remains, however, that no piece of blue-and-white has yet been linked conclusively
to that period, and for want of material evidence of any kind one invariably turns from
the porcelains themselves to books about porcelains, and this means that the T'ao-shuo
will be cited as authority.
Toward the end of his section describing specimens of the Sung Dynasty in chap-
ter 5, Chu Yen introduces the subheading "The Blue-painted Bowls of Jao Chou" in
which he cites the Ko-ku-yao-lun of Ts'ao Chao as his source for the following:
m±'M^MmWi^'€^ti W^'^'P^- "As for the Jao Chou imperial pottery, the body
was thin and unctuous, the color white, the decoration blue; compared with Ting wares
they were a little inferior." Commenting, Chu goes on to say, "This seems to have
been the beginning of Jao wares," which of course were the porcelains of Ching-te
Chen, situated in the Jao Chou {chou = district) of Kiangsi Province, the porcelain-
manufacturing center of the world in Ming and Ch'ing times. It would seem that this
was fairly solid ground; Chu Yen writing in the eighteenth century quotes an author
whose work, first pubHshed in 1387, was already a venerable authority on antiques of
all kinds. But attention has already been drawn to the presence of serious shortcom-
ings in the text of the T'ao-shuo, and the present passage is but one more indication
of the urgent need for an over-all revision. In a word, Chu Yen to the contrary not-
withstanding, the Ko-ku-yao-lun says no such thing. The passage, which appears under
the heading ku-jao-ch'i -^f^'^, "Ancient Jao Wares," in chiian 7 of the 13-chapter
THE BEGINNINGS OF BLUE-AND-WHITE
39
editions and in the first section of chiian 3 of tiie 3-chapter version, reads M±M
^^UWMMM, "As for the imperial pottery, the body was thin and unctuous, it was
very fine." Blue is not mentioned at all until some lines later in the discussion of
Yiian Dynasty wares. So much, then, for the principal and what has always been con-
sidered the earliest Chinese evidence for the existence of Ching-te-Chen blue-and-white
in Sung times. We need not at this moment inquire into Chu Yen's motive in distorting
his source; but the lack of evidence in the form of porcelain itself combined with the
apparent absence of textual support tends to raise serious doubts about the existence
of Sung blue-and-white.
Some 20 years ago, Dr. Nils Palmgren of Stockholm visited many of the pottery-
producing areas of China and brought back great quantities of shards. Among the
materials from two sites where Sung wares were made his finds included a handful of
small fragments of a ware decorated in blue. Two shards from Ch'ing-ho Hsien are of
gray ware with poor glaze and underglaze markings in a blackish, blurry blue turning
grayish in spots. One bowl fragment bears a trace of a blue line above the foot. Two
This text is the same in all the editions I have been able to consult. The bibliographic his-
tory of this work has been sketched by Sir Percival David (TOCS, 14 (1936-1937): 13-16), who
notes that he has seen neither the original 3-chapter version of Ts'ao Chao nor the enlarged
and revised 1 3-chapter version of Wang Tso which appeared in 1459. In the Library of
Congress is a rare early edition of the Ming collectanea 1-men-kuang-tu ^P^J^/}g published by the
antiquarian, calligrapher, and literatus Chou Li-ching W\Wi^- His own preface is dated in cor-
respondence with 30 May 1597, and is followed by prefaces by Liu Feng giJIH, (undated), by
Huang Hung-hsien (21 March 1598), by Chang Hsien-i (undated), and finally
by Ho San-wei jSjHS (2 August 1598). Chiian 13 of this work is a 3-chapter version of the
Ko-ku-yao-lun bearing only the preface of Ts'ao Chao dated on the fifteenth day of the third moon
of the twentieth year of Hung-wu (3 April 1387) and consisting of 61 folios or 122 pages of nine
18-character lines each. All other editions I have seen are in 13 chapters and include, at the head
of each chiian, the names of Ts'ao Chao as author, Shu Min -gj^ as editor, Wang Tso as reviser
and enlarger, and Huang Cheng-wei ^jE{4 as re-editor ( J:|$); they also bear an undated preface
by Cheng P'u %^'. All are 314 folios in length. The difficulty over the original date of this work
(cf. Pelliot, TP 25 (1927-1928): 124) arises from the fact that in one of these editions, and
presumably in some others, Ts'ao Chao's preface is dated one year later, in the twenty-first year
of Hung-wu.
At this time it is impossible to say whether the 3-chapter version in the I-men-kuang-tu is the
same as Ts'ao Chao's original; nor can we tell how far the 1 3-chapter versions bearing the names
of Huang Cheng-wei and Cheng P'u stray from the text of Wang Tso's revised edition. Further
study of these and such other editions as may be found should make it possible to establish the
validity of this important work, for unless we know precisely which statements were made in 1387
and which were added in 1459 its usefulness for purposes of specific reference is greatly weakened.
The literary section of the Ming history describes the Ko-ku-yao-hin as a 14-chapter work
compiled in the Hung-wu period by Ts'ao Chao and revised in the T'ien-shun period by Wang
Chiin 3E.:^. Cf. Ming Shih, chiian 98, p. 14vl (1739 ed.). At the moment I know of no other
reference to an edition in 14 chapters, nor have I been able to find Chiin as one of Wang Tso's
various names, though no doubt he is the man to whom reference is made.
40
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
pieces from Chii-lu Hsien have grayish porcelain bodies somewhat finer than the above
ware and are decorated in blackish blue under a semiopaque milky glaze. These pieces
are said to have been dug up from levels containing Sung wares, but the degree of sci-
entific control under which the excavations were carried out is not known. Further,
there is no indication that kiln sites were involved. The presence at the Ch'ing-ho
Hsien site of two fragments of fine white porcelain covered with celadon glaze of good
quahty suggests that the site may have been a dump heap and that wares of later peri-
ods were included.'*'
These fragments, in spite of their obvious interest, hardly constitute conclusive
evidence of the existence of Sung blue-and- white. If, however, we give them the bene-
fit of the doubt, they suggest that the first Chinese experiments with this ware were
made in the North rather than in Kiangsi. On the other hand, while it might be ex-
pected, as Jenyns has suggested," that these wares would have started in that area and
have been decorated in emulation of the underglaze painting on the Tz'u-chou wares,
there is no indication on these insignificant shards that that was the case. Whatever
it may be, this ware has httle relationship to blue-and- white in its mature form, and
it seems doubtful whether it played any part in the development of the Kiangsi wares
under consideration here, wares which from Yiian times on were, for all practical pur-
poses, Chinese blue-and-white.
There is one other small family of blue-and-white for which a Sung date has been
suggested. It is made up of a few small dishes each of which is decorated with a single
leaf at the left and a group of Chinese characters written at the right and in some cases
a square simulating a seal below the latter. They are crudely made wares with brown
rims, and both drawing and calligraphy are very roughly executed. A number of
fragmentary examples are among the pieces excavated in the Philippines by the Uni-
versity of Michigan, and there is a perfect piece in the Riesco Collection. On the
latter and on two of the Michigan fragments, the characters, although so poorly
written as to be almost illegible, seem to read T'ai-p'ing-nien-chih and Mr.
Bluett in his publication of the Riesco dish assigns the piece to the T'ai-p'ing reign of
the Liao Dynasty, which would mean that it was made in the extreme north of China
between A.D. 1021 and 1031. Nothing now known about Liao pottery seems to
justify the attribution of a white porcelain ware to the region extending northward
from the Great Wall, and some other explanation must be sought for this curious in-
scription. The four other T'ai-p'ing reigns in Chinese history all fall even earHer than
that in the Liao Dynasty and may equally be ruled out. Inasmuch as these and the rest
In October 1952 Dr. Palmgren kindly permitted me to examine these fragments in Stock-
holm. One of them is pubhshed on the color plate facing p. 86 in the Swedish periodical Porslin,
no. 1-2, Stockholm, 1952.
®^ Ming pottery and porcelain, p. 26.
»^ Bluett, The Riesco Collection, p. 11.
THE BEGINNINGS OF BLUE-AND-WHITE
41
of the inscriptions that appear on dishes of this group are used in a decorative way to
balance the drawing of the single leaf in the composition, it seems probable that it
should be taken in its literal sense rather than as a date, simply, "made in an era of
great tranquility."
A recently published fragment of still another dish of this same family supports
this view and establishes what seems a more acceptable date for these wares. The
decoration consists of the same single leaf, in this case balanced by a 10-character
poem in the same stringy calligraphy; and on the base within a double circle is a 6-
character mark which reads Ta-ch'ing-chi-yu-nien-chih Chi-yu is the
cyclical year which corresponds with 1669 on its first occurrence in the Ch'ing
Dynasty, and inasmuch as the dynastic title is given without any reign name it seems
hkely that this is the date intended. It is also appropriate to the qualities of this group
of dishes which conform to what one might expect to find in coarse provincial or pri-
vate factory wares of the early K'ang-hsi period. The discovery of this dated shard
should eliminate this family once and for all from consideration as possible examples
of early blue-and-white.
The status of the Uterary sources on Yiian blue-and-white is of no more than
secondary importance because, as abundant evidence will demonstrate, this period
witnessed the manufacture of what now appears to be some of the most striking blue-
and-white ever produced in China. On the other hand, it is worthwhile to bring to-
gether the few references that are known both for the sake of completing the record
and because the very nature of the texts seems to shed some light on the attitude
toward these wares in Mongol times. As will be seen, there has been a certain amount
of confusion in the interpretation of these writings and it may be useful to review the
available material and see what can be made of it.
The earUest account of the ceramic industry is the T'ao-chi-liieh of
Chiang Ch'i MW\, which was written as a supplementary note to the edition of the
Annals of Fou-Hang pubhshed in 1322 and which has been included in all subsequent
editions."" Although this work does not mention blue-and-white, a recent translation
of another text on ceramics gives the impression that it does; and this erroneous notion
must be disposed of with as little delay as possible. The passage in Chiang Ch'i's text
reads XLM)\\W'^lMnU\^=f'^\:t.U; and this was quoted almost verbatim'' by Lan
P'u in his Ching-te-chen t'ao-lu pubhshed in 1815. Including the original text and its
Han Wei-chiin, in Annual, 1953, China Society, Singapore, p. 22 (Chinese section), fig. 20.
3» Fou-liang hsien-chih-^^^,]^.. Cf. David, AA, 12, 3 (1949) : 169. The only copy I have
been able to consult is that dated in the twenty-first year of K'ang-hsi (1682), which exists on
microfilm in the Library of Congress. In this edition the section on pottery administration is in
chiian 4, pp. 39r3-48v4, and Chiang's note, here entitled T'oo-c/?/-/;/ |5fej pfj- , is on pp. 48v6-51v9.
The printing is weak and in a number of places the characters are almost illegible.
^1 Lan wrote ^ for ji^ and Jj^ for ^ (chiian 5, pp. 2v8-3rl), and this may reflect the text of
the version he used.
42
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
later quotation, this passage boasts no less than three published translations, each one
differing in some details from the others. Taking them in chronological order we find
Stanislas Julien in his translation of the T'ao-lu gives the following "Les vases
blancs et bleus dont on fait usage dans les provinces du Tche-kiang, du Hou-pe, du
Sse-tch'ouen et du Kouang-tong, sortent des manufactures de King-te-tchin." The
French is ambiguous, and as in English, "the white and blue vases" may mean either
"the vases that are white and blue" or "the white vases and blue vases." Next in order
is Bushell, who translated the passage from one of the editions of Chiang Ch'i's original
memoir in these words: "In the provinces of Chiang (Kiangnan), Hu (Hukuang),
Ch'uan (Ssuch'uan) and Kuang (Kuangtung), [they prefer] the greenish white or
celadon ware which comes from the kilns of Ching-te-chen proper." And finally Sayer
renders it thus "Kiang [-si], Hu [-nan], [Ssu]-ch'uan, Kuang [-tung] use 'ch'ing-pai'
(blue/green and white) vessels coming from the town's kihis."
The degree of difference between these three renderings of the same Chinese sen-
tence reveals something of the nature of the problems to be faced by the student who
turns to the native sources for enlightenment. Although not related to the matter
immediately in hand, the interpretation of the names of the provinces on the basis of
their abbreviated forms shows considerable variation; and the proper solution depends
of course upon finding the Yiian Dynasty meaning of the single characters used."' The
meaning of the term ch'ing-pai W S, however, is crucial. JuHen gives "blanc et bleu,"
Bushell says "greenish white" and adds "celadon ware" as his own interpolation, and
Sayer translates it "blue/green and white." None of these translations is entirely satis-
factory. The word ch'ing, which may be translated either "blue" or "green" depending
upon the context, has always been a source of trouble when encountered in texts de-
scribing ceramic decoration. Both meanings are valid, and it seems unlikely that it
will ever be possible to evolve a rule-of-thumb to cover all situations. The proper
translation will always depend on the context not only in the literal sense of the word
but in the broadest sense including the knowledge of the ceramics themselves. Sayer's
proposed solution of "blue/green" is no solution at all. Not only does it beg the ques-
tion altogether, it also succeeds in casting obscurity over those passages which are
otherwise entirely clear to anyone who has even the most casual familiarity with
Chinese ceramics. In this passage from Chiang Ch'i's memoir, the meaning "green"
^- Julien, Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise, Paris, 1856, p. 85.
»3 Bushell, Oriental ceramic art, p. 179. He used the Tao-kuang edition (1821-1850).
Sayer, op. cit., p. 40.
As this problem in historical geography is of slight importance to the present subject, I
shall not go into it. It may be noted, however, that in A. Herrmann, Atlas of Ciiina, p. 52, the
provinces of southern China in the Yiian Dynasty, reading westward from the sea, are named
Kiangche, Kiangsi, Hukwang, and, northwest of the latter, Szechwan. There is no Kuang-tung
indicated, and eastern China between the Yangtze and the Yellow Rivers is all Honan. Proper
interpretation of these abbreviations written in 1322 calls for further research.
THE BEGINNINGS OF BLUE-AND-WHITE
43
can be dismissed altogether and with it Busheil's translation. There is no evidence that
Ching-te Chen was ever distinguished for the manufacture of celadon wares in YUan
times. No doubt celadons were made there; they were made in almost every pottery
south of the Yellow River, but an incidental output of the commonest kind of utili-
tarian ceramic ware would not be likely to call for special comment.
On the other hand, the interpretations of Julien and Sayer seem equally wide of
the mark. Juhen's "blanc et bleu" has the advantage of being on the face of it as
ambiguous as the Chinese term it attempts to translate. But the Chinese term when
examined more closely is not necessarily ambiguous at all. The Chinese would not
use this phrase to say "white vases and blue vases" or even the more general "white
wares and blue wares" that might be expected, nor would they ever use it to express
the idea of "blue and white," a concept which appears to be expressed invariably by
the term ch'ing-hua meaning "blue decoration" or "blue decorated." What
then of Chiang's term ch'ing-pai? The obvious answer is to take it straightforward in
a manner supported by abundant precedent including the phrase ch'ing-hua just
mentioned. The translation is "blue white" or "bluish white," and Bushell, but for his
choice of color, almost had the answer. Bluish white, moreover, perfectly describes the
ware widely known to connoisseurs today by the twentieth-century term ying-ch'ing
, a ware produced in great quantities in Ching-te Chen and surrounding area in
Sung and perhaps Yiian times." So ch'ing-pai becomes perfectly clear, and though it
is probably unhkely that the artificial concoction ying-ch'ing will be abandoned, so
deeply is it entrenched in usage, it need no longer be used only because we do not know
what the Chinese called this ware in the days when they were making it. If Chiang
Ch'i disappoints us by faiHng to mention blue-and-white, he makes amends by pro-
viding us with the answer to an old problem."'"
The only other text early enough to be of any significance is the Ko-ku-yao-lun,
which has already been discussed in connection with the lack of evidence for Sung
^•^The term seems to occur for the first time in the T'ao-ya by Chi Yiian-sou ^glg,
which bears prefaces dated in 1906 and 1910. It is interesting to note further that the author uses
it to describe the Yung-lo "bodiless" bowls. {Chilan J^, 10r6.)
»^ The earliest use of the term ch'ing-pai I have encountered thus far is in the Chu-fan-chih,
of Chao Ju-kua, where he lists ch'ing-pai-tz'u-ch'i among the commodities used by
foreign merchants trading in Java. This work, probably written before the middle of the thirteenth
century, was included in the Yung-lo-ta-tien whence it was taken by Li T'iao-yiian for
inclusion in his collection entitled Han-hai published in 1782. See Han-hai 50, J:., 12r6; Hirth
and Rockhill translation, pp. 35, 38, and 78. On p. 78 they also misinterpret the term as meaning
blue-and-white.
^""^ Sir Percival David's note on the same subject came out v/hile the manuscript of the present
volume was in the hands of the printer. See Ying-ch'ing, a plea for a l?etter term, OA, new ser.,
I, 2 (Summer 1955): 52-53. Our Japanese colleagues have been calling this ware cli'ing-pai for
some time.
44
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
blue-and-white. In describing the wares of the Yiian Dynasty under the same heading,
"Ancient Jao Wares," the author concludes with this passage: ^W^E SSfe^E^^fS
"there were blue-and-white and five-color wares but they were very vulgar."
Here seems to be the earliest occurrence of the term ch'ing-hua and at the same time
the earliest reference to blue-and-white by a Chinese writer. The most striking thing
about the passage, however, is the expression of opinion on the merit of the ware.
Evidently it was frowned upon in cultivated circles, and this may have been simply
because in comparison with the long-familiar monochromes it seemed garish, or
perhaps because it was an innovation, always deplored by conservatives, or perhaps
even because it was a foreign importation. The author dismisses the whole subject so
briefly we shall never know. Thus the first literary reference to blue-and-white; there
is nothing to suggest that it enjoyed imperial favor or indeed any favor at all in the
second half of the fourteenth century; and under the circumstances it is not surprising
that genuine nien-hao of the Hung-wu period are unknown on these wares; no doubt
they were considered unworthy of the honor.
But now that fourteenth-century blue-and-white has been identified, and can be
compared in retrospect with the products of the succeeding centuries, we can see what
an impressive accomplishment it was, what an important step it marked in the ad-
vance of ceramic history. While the ultimate refinements still lay ahead, the materials
were evidently at hand, the principal technical problems had been brought under
control, and there had been estabhshed a repertory of design that was to form the basis
of blue-and-white decoration from that time on. The circumstances surrounding the
sudden appearance of this new technique are still far from clear, but it was gradually
accorded a widespread and enthusiastic reception by the Chinese; and it seems reason-
able to assume that it was introduced from the outside in Yiian times, probably from
western Asia where cobalt was known and where ceramics had long been decorated by
this method. It is impossible to say exactly how this introduction took place. The
suggestion that the Chinese took blue-and-white wares from the Near East as their
models is an obvious one, but on closer examination it is not altogether convincing.
In the first place there was no reason for this ware to move eastward. Everyone knew
the Chinese made better ceramic products, and no sharp-witted Asiatic trader was
likely to be caught carrying coals to Newcastle; so it is not surprising that no finds of
Islamic pottery on Chinese soil seem to have been recorded. Secondly, and even more
important, although the repertory of design found on fourteenth-century blue-and-
white includes many elements new to Chinese ceramic decoration, it shows little if any
evidence of derivation from Persian or other Near Eastern designs of the period. As
Chiian , 49v9 in the 3-chapter edition as reproduced in the I-men-kuang-tu. In the
13-chapter editions, in chiian 7, 25r3, the text is altered to read i^ ^ SBEfe^E^-Eli&S which
does not change the meaning although it ehminates the explicit term ch'ing-hua.
THE BEGINNINGS OF BLUE-AND-WHITE
45
will be seen in examining the details, Islamic motifs never played more than a trifling
part in the Chinese scheme,whereas a number of Chinese elements made their appear-
ance on Near Eastern blue-and-white as the centuries passed. But this is to anticipate;
and we need no longer delay looking at the wares themselves. Close examination
will show that, in spite of occasional minor borrowings, the blue-and-white porcelain
of China was always and essentially a manifestation of the Chinese spirit.
PART II— THE ARDEBIL PORCELAINS
THE COLLECTION TODAY
Of the 1,162 porcelains deposited in the Shrine by Shah 'Abbas, as recorded in
the journal of Jalal ed-Din, 805 remain today. More than three-quarters of these are
blue-and-white, and the 80 white wares and 58 celadons are supplemented by a hand-
ful of polychrome and single-color wares."' All but 3 1 are engraved with the dedica-
tory inscription of Shah 'Abbas; and the absence of the mark on those few pieces has
not been explained. Three possibiUties may be mentioned: (A) They were included
in the original vaqf but accidentally overlooked in the marking; (B) they were placed
in the Shrine after the original gift was made; or (C) they came into the collection
after its removal to Tehran in 1935. Among the blue-and-white wares, those that lack
this inscription have no special characteristics to distinguish them from marked pieces
of related types so the omission is not important for the purpose of this study. Three
of the unmarked celadons, however, may well be earlier than the rest, and these will be
mentioned in the chapter on those wares.
Certain unusual features of the collection deserve attention. Because of the fact
that they reached Iran in early times, these are in a sense export porcelains; but
"export" is a term of derogation usually reflecting on the quality of the wares so de-
scribed, and, as a glance at the illustrations will reveal, there is no need for apology in
this case. Although it will be noted that certain types of wares are not represented, it
is on the whole the most complete and well-rounded collection of blue-and-white from
about 1350 to 1600 to be found in one place. In such a large body of material every
level of quality is present, but the astonishing thing is that the general average is so
high. A few pieces are crude to mediocre, the larger part of the collection is good, and
at the top is a surprisingly sizable group of wares of the finest quality. This is true
throughout, but perhaps most striking are the products of the fifteenth century,
which are on no account to be confused with the crudely potted porcelains coarsely
decorated with muddy blue under dull and pitted glazes that in those days found their
way to sundry seaports from the East Indian Archipelago to the shores of the Dark
Continent. It would seem that the Shahs of Iran, themselves accustomed to every
luxury and refinement, had standards of quality in what they collected not unlike those
current at the court of Peking.
Examples may be chosen almost at random. Among the large dishes with un-
glazed bases no finer pieces are known than 29.55 (pi. 37), 29.60 (pi. 39), 29.63 (pi.
41), 29.83 (pi. 33); and 29.310-311-312 (pis. 42-44), are equaled only by two
°^ Typological and chronological analyses of the existing collection will be found in the Ap-
pendix, pp. 159-162.
49
50
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
similar pieces in Istanbul. The bowls numbered 29.326 and 29.327 (pis. 46 and 47),
and their counterparts in white, 29.717-718 (pi. 113), are of superb quahty. Among
the vases, too, the standard is as high as that which we know among the best wares
from China; 29.413 (pi. 51), 29.415, 29.496 (pi. 56), and 29.470 (pi. 53) are
typical; and the writer has seen no more perfect piece of early fifteenth-century porce-
lain anywhere than the mei-p'ing 29.403 (pi. 50). The same holds true for the wares
of the second half of the century. Saucers like 29.149 (pi. 59) and 29.277 (pi. 58)
and bowls like 29.341 (pi. 60), 29.343 (pi. 62), and 29.345 (pi. 63), to mention but
a few, would be treasures in any collection in the world today. In the light of this un-
expected display of quality, the significance of the term "export porcelain" deserves
reexamination, for these bear Httle or no resemblance to wares recovered from other
parts of Asia; and it seems reasonable to conclude from this that the Chinese chose
their export commodities with an eye to the ultimate market. In spite of the generally
accepted view that the inhabitants of the Middle Kingdom considered themselves the
only civilized people on earth and regarded all those who lived elsewhere as utter bar-
barians, there must have been discrimination of some sort based on the knowledge
that, for reasons which they perhaps could not fathom, some barbarians seemed less
barbarous than others. In any case, this great Iranian collection stands quite alone
among the porcelains known to have left China in Ming times.
THE NON-CHINESE MARKS
As related in the account of Jalal ed-Din, the Shah had a certain Maulana
Mohammad Hosein Hakkak of Khorasan engrave on each porcelain that went into
the Shrine the vaqfnameh or dedicatory inscription, and this appears today on all but
31 of the surviving pieces. It occurs in two forms. The normal writing is framed in a
rectangle usually five-eighths of an inch high by three-quarters of an inch wide ( 1.6 X
2.0 cm.) and varying not more than about a sixteenth of an inch in either dimension
(pi. 6, A-D). The inscription reads, Bandeh-ye shah-e wilayat 'Abbas vaqf bar as-
taneh-ye shah Safi namud, and may be translated " 'Abbas, Slave of the King of Saint-
liness made endowment (of this) to the threshold of Shah SafL" Even in this short sen-
tence there are three cliches. "King of Saintliness" is a customary epithet of 'AH,
son-in-law of the Prophet and the first Imam, who was second only to Mohammad in
the Shi'a hierarchy; and "Slave of the King of Saintliness" is a term frequently used by
devout donors in Safavid times. Here 'Abbas thus refers to himself. "Threshold" stands
for mosque or madraseh or, in this case, the Shrine, another common usage at the time.
The second form is the abbreviated inscription where the same dedicatory formula is
reduced to three letters (pi. 6, E) ; the sad standing for Safi, the je J for vaqj and
the ain ^ for 'Abbas. This occurs on seven pieces in the collection; and these and the
normal inscriptions have been rubbed with a red pigment of some kind, which in many
cases remains and forms a bold contrast with the white porcelain ground. Both forms
are in every case cut into the glaze just above the base or low on the side of the vessel.
In addition to these marks, which identify the porcelains with the Shrine of Sheikh
Safi and with the vaqj of 1611 and thus were the latest that could have been carved,
for it is hardly possible that they could have been added after the collection was in the
possession of the Shrine, there are a number of other marks which seem to indicate
private ownership. These are executed in two ways, either in a broad incised line or in
a series of dots formed by shallow depressions made with a drill of some sort; except
when otherwise noted, they are cut into the paste on the bases of the porcelains. It
appears likely that the pieces bearing these names and signs had belonged to various
individuals at one time or another and that they had made their way into the royal
collection in earlier times or that, when they belonged to persons who were contem-
porary with Shah 'Abbas, they had been given to him so they could be added to the
vaqj and their owners could thus share in the spiritual rewards to be gained from the
pious donation. Many of these marks are now meaningless, but some are legible; and
in a few cases it seems reasonable to attempt to identify them with known persons. The
one that occurs most frequently is the single word Qarachaghdy, which is incised or
51
52
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
drilled on some 94 pieces (pi. 6, F-G)""; and this was the name of a man who enjoyed
a position of particular favor at the court of Shah 'Abbas. Born of Armenian Christian
parents, he had been stolen from his family in boyhood by the Tatars, who circumcised
him and sold him to Shah 'Abbas. This account of his origin is given by Olearius who
continues,"' "The freedom and sincerity of his disposition and demeanour, had gained
him the friendship of the whole Court, and his courage had so well settled him in the
king's favour, that having, by this means, had several great victories over his Enemies,
he had conferred on him the Command of his Army, and looked upon him with such
respect, that he never called him by any other name than that of Aga, that is, Captain,"
Another source verifies this last fact and states that Qarachaghay was chief of the
royal pages {Qul-lar Aga-si), one of the great offices of Iran, and later commander in
chief (Silpasdldr) ; in 1617 he was appointed governor of Azerbaijan and in 1619
governor of Khorasan. So great was the esteem in which he was held that on his death
the Shah gave the latter post to his son Manuchehr Khan."'
This Qarachaghay was involved in the blackest event in the career of Shah
'Abbas. It was no more than normal Persian procedure in his time that the Shah on
coming to the throne should have blinded and imprisoned his two younger brothers to
insure his own tenure; but even by these standards this latest deed was considered
shocking and the story as related by Olearius throws an interesting fight on the charac-
ter of Qarachaghay and on the esteem in which he was held by his sovereign. 'Abbas's
eldest son, SafI Mirza, had a jealous wife who succeeded in planting in the mind of her
father-in-law the idea that her husband had premature designs on the throne. His sus-
picions thus aroused, 'Abbas grew more and more fearful until he finally decided to do
"0 The word is properly written t^Us- jS , but on the porcelains the final letter ye is written
above the others; strict transliteration would be Qrchghal, but various romanizations include Qara-
jaghal, Qarchiqay, Qarachaghai, Qarachaqhay, etc. Pietro delle Valle wrote it Carcica, Olearius
(1669) used Kartzschukai, and Malcolm (vol. 2, p. 561) wrote Karachee Khan.
"1 Op. cit., pp. 261-262.
"^Nasrollah Falsafi, Zindegani-ye Shah 'Abbas, vol. 1, pp. 180-181.
A copy of the Shahnameh of Firdawsi in Windsor Castle is dated 1058/1648 and inscribed
as having been copied for the library of Khan 'All Shan Qarachaghay Khan, Supervisor of the
Mashhad Shrine (Robinson, Persian paintings, p. 7, no. 1). If we attempt to identify this man with
the Qarachaghay in our story, we are faced with an anachronism. Manuchehr Khan must have suc-
ceeded his father as governor of Khorasan before the death of Shah 'Abbas in 1629; and therefore
our Qarachaghay could not have been alive in 1648. Another disturbing factor is a miniature in
the Walters Gallery which depicts a group of persons among whom is one labeled Qarachaghay.
Both Ettinghausen and Robinson consider the painting about mid-seventeenth century, and the
portrait of Qarachaghay is that of a middle-aged man about fifty at most. While he could be the
patron of the 1648 Shahnameh, he could hardly have been old enough to have owned an important
collection of Chinese porcelain more than 37 years earlier. Yet beyond these two documents no
reference to a second Qarachaghay has yet turned up. Could Manuchehr Khan have taken his
father's name at some later date?
THE NON-CHINESE MARKS
53
away with his son; and thinking that Qarachaghay of all people was most obliged to
him, he asked him to murder Safi. But Qarachaghay was horrified and said "he would
rather lose a thousand lives than that he should ever be reproach'd to have imbru'd
his hands in the blood of any of the royal progeny" he told the Shah that he would
repent as soon as he had done it, and so highly did the Shah regard him that he was
excused. 'Abbas, however, did not give up his plan and engaged the services of "a
Gentleman named Behbut-Beg whom he found not so scrupulous." Behbud arranged
to meet Safi Mirza one morning as he came from his bath riding on a mule and
murdered him. As Qarachaghay had predicted, 'Abbas at once deeply regretted his
hasty action and mourned and fasted "and all his life after he wore not anything about
him, that might, as to the matter of cloaths, distinguish him from the meanest of his
subjects." Later at a banquet in Qazvin he poisoned all who had urged him to do it;
and he made Behbud behead his own son so he would see how he felt and then said to
him, "my son and thine are no more, and reflect, that thou art in this equal to the King
thy master." Shortly thereafter Behbud was murdered by his own servants who had
accidentally scalded his hands in washing them and feared the inevitable punishment.
This then may have been the Qarachaghay who owned these pieces of blue-and-white
and contributed them to the vaqf out of devotion to the master to whom he owed so
much; and among these pieces were some of the finest of those that have survived.
Another readable name drilled into the paste of four of the porcelains is Behbud
(pi. 6, H), and while there is more difficulty in assigning it to the right man, there is
more than a reasonable possibiUty that this is the same not so scrupulous gentleman
who carried out the assignment given him by Shah 'Abbas in the horrid episode just
related. As has been suggested elsewhere,"' the name has also been identified with
that of a personage who was a favored page and became an amir at the court of Hosein
Baiqara, the great art patron of the Timurid Dynasty who ruled Khorasan from 1469
to 1506. But although the four porcelains are of early fifteenth-century date and
might well have been owned in Herat in the latter part of the century, and although
the word behbud is found on Timurid coins, the identification is by no means certain.
On coins minted at Herat, Astarabad, and elsewhere it occurs as a counterstamp from
the reign of Abu Sa'Id ( 1452-1469), and only under Hosein Baiqara does it appear
on the original coin. The question is whether this word behbud is a personal name in
these cases or whether it should be considered semantically as a validating phrase
Olearius, op. cit., p. 261; the following quotations are from the same passage. The incident
is also related by Malcolm, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 561-562.
i»=Bahrami, TOCS, 25 (1949-1950): 16; and Pope, TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): 45-46. In
the latter article (note 15)1 have already corrected a still earher statement I made about Behbud in
my Leuer from the Near East (p. 561), which was based on erroneous information given me in
Tehran. Malcolm, loc. cit., calls this man Beh-bood Khan.
54
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
signifying "good for circulation" or some such thing/*"' If the latter interpretation is
acceptable, the word could presumably have been used in the same way on the porce-
lains, but on the face of it this does not seem a likely solution. In the absence of any
other evidence that hnks these wares to the court of Herat, and in view of the histor-
ical events in which a Qarachaghay and a Behbud were closely associated with Shah
'Abbas, it seems more logical to dismiss for the time being the possibility of Timurid
connections and to consider that the porcelains once belonged to these men of the
Safavid Dynasty. Further support for this view is provided by the appearance on the
handsome dragon bottle 29.471 of both names together; Behbud is written above in
bold dots and Qarachaghay below in dots that are sHghtly smaller.'" On a large oval
bottle decorated with lotus scrolls the name Qarachaghay appears drilled on the
shoulder, while the name Behbud is drilled on the base together with a third name
Abu Talib (pi. 6, 1). Behbud is also found on two bowls 29.329 and 29.339 (not
illustrated but pairs to 29.330 on pi. 47 and 29.340 on pi. 49)'""; all four pieces with
this mark are of excellent quality.
The Abu Talib mark on 29.469 has already been mentioned, and it occurs again
on 29.478, which is a pair to 29.471 (pi. 53). On these two unusually fine pieces are
the only surviving examples of this mark noted in the collection. Identification is diffi-
cult if not impossible; Abu TaHb was the uncle of Mohammad and the father of 'All,
and consequently his name was always popular among Muslims. The only contem-
porary individual of that name who appears in the records was one of the Shah's
younger brothers who, as we have seen, was deprived of his eyesight and his liberty
while still a boy.
The Behbud who was a Timurid amir is mentioned in A. S. Beveridge, The Babur-nama in
English, vol. 1, p. 277; and the name appears on a small agate bowl which also bears an inscription
relating to Hosein Baiqara, cf. Survey of Persian Art, vol. 6, plate 1455B. The bowl was no. 193Z
in the London exhibition; and the Behbud inscription, not mentioned in the Survey, is discussed by
Wiet, L'exposition persane de 1931, p. 48. In the early sixteenth century the word appears on
a coin of Isma'il I (1501-1524) which is counterstamped "Behbud Mashhad," cf. Rabino di
Borgomale, Album of coins, medals, and seals of the Shahs of Iran (1500-1948). Dr. George C.
Miles, who has been most generous with his help on this and other epigraphic problems, assures me
that the solution is still to be found; he points out that no less eminent a scholar than Barthold more
than 50 years ago came to the conclusion that the word on the coins refers to the man, cf. Zapiski
Vostochnago Otdeleniya imp. Russ. Arkheolog. Obschestva, St. Petersburg, vol. 14, 1901 (1902),
0106-7.
The difference in the sizes of the dots seems to be only a matter of technique; variations in
size within a single word are also noticeable and probably just reflect unevennesses in the amount of
pressure applied to the drill.
Cf. Bahrami, op. cit., plate 2, c and d, for illustrations of this vase, our no. 29.469.
Op. cit., plate 1 , c and d. On c the Behbud mark is incised in addition to the drilled mark on
the base; it is not visible in the photograph.
THE NON-CHINESE MARKS
55
Even more puzzling is a word for which the writing is not entirely clear; some-
times it looks like qdi, sometimes quli, and sometimes J ^ quli; other occur-
rences are marginal. Quli occurs as part of many Persian names but
does not stand alone in such cases; as a word it can mean "slave," but |
that seems to be of little help in this case. One possibiUty is that it might ^ .
refer to a certain Quli Beg Afshah, an eminent Qizilbash contemporary ^ ^ •3'
with Shah 'Abbas; but this is the purest speculation. • •• •
The word ^^jl; ndrinji (or ndranji), incised on the bases of 29.28 aI^riiTe°d1ifthe
and 29.83, is also unexplained."" It offers two possibilities. Narin base of 29.85.
occurs today as the name of a region that hes about 100 miles due north
of Kabul in Afghanistan, and it is also the name of a river, one of the upper confluents
of the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) in Ferghana where there is a town of the same name.
Ndrinji could be a nisbah referring to a man from a place called Narin; but we are
handicapped here by the fact that it has not been possible to determine precisely the
antiquity of these names. In the case of the river and the town in Ferghana, it appears
that the name was Khaylan or Khatlan in the tenth century and Uzgand as late as the
fifteenth. In any case ndrinji does not occur in the standard corpus of nisbah. On the
other hand, if the reading ndranji is accepted in its meaning of "orange," it could be
interpreted as describing the color imparted to the base by the iron content of the clay.
Most remarkable is the short inscription written in underglaze blue beneath the
rim of the largest of the fourteenth-century dishes (pi. 6, K) . Many examples of Arabic
writings in underglaze blue are known in the Cheng-te period, and one such piece has
a Hung-chih mark '"; but this antedates all other known cases by something like a
century and a half, and in view of the fact that Persian was evidently the current lan-
guage of international commerce in China over a long period of time it seems strange
that until the appearance of this dish no other such inscriptions have been found. Un-
fortunately, not only do the words written here tell us nothing that throws any Hght on
the problem, but there is almost no agreement among scholars about what they say.
They were evidently written by a Chinese, or at least someone not accustomed to
writing the Arabic script; hence the calligraphic stresses are wrong and they cannot
be read conclusively. On this point all are agreed. A number of tentative suggestions
have been advanced, and they are set forth here. For the first word, Hosein seems a
likely possibility; harim was suggested by two informants and sharply rejected by two
others, one of whom hinted at Mohammad. The second word has been read haqq and
also be-juft; marhUm has likewise been mentioned, and others have given it up alto-
gether. Such combinations as Hosein haqq, "Hosein is truth," and Hosein be-juft,
"Hosein is peerless," extolUng the virtues of the grandson of the Prophet, naturally
""Cf. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): 45. I have not been able to add anything to the remarks
made in that article, and they are repeated here to complete the record.
"1 Cf. p. 123 below.
56
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
come to the mind of any reader of Persian as the sort of obvious pious slogan likely to
be encountered; but beyond the fact that they reveal the presence of at least one de-
vout Shi'ite on the premises of a Kiangsi porcelain factory around the middle of the
fourteenth century, these readings tell us nothing.
On a white bowl with Hung-chih mark exhibited in the Chehel Sotun in Isfahan
there appears, in addition to the dedicatory inscription of Shah 'Abbas, a mark in-
cised in extremely fine and deHcate script which reads Shah Jahangir Shah Akbar.^^'
Jahangir, Mughal emperor of India from 1605 to 1627, was in correspondence with
Shah 'Abbas all during his reign, and in spite of the fact that they had minor quarrels
over the possession of the fortress of Qandahar, the two sovereigns held one another
in the highest esteem and frequently exchanged presents. The tone of this happy
relationship is felt in a passage in the memoirs where Jahangir describes a picture
gallery he had installed in his garden as "now adorned with pictures by master hands.
In the most honored positions were hkenesses of Humayun and of my father [i.e.,
Akbar] opposite to my own, and that of my brother Shah 'Abbas." Porcelain is not
mentioned among the gifts exchanged as they seem to have been more concerned with
such things as horses, rubies, crystal goblets, and fine silk stuffs; but in almost every
instance the phrase "and other fitting gifts" is added, and porcelain may well have
been included. One case is worth quoting because of the fight it throws on inscrip-
tions of the kind we are concerned with here. In 1031/1621 Jahangir wrote of
receiving "a loving letter from that noble brother, together with a black and white
plume (kalgU-ablaq) , valued by the jewellers at Rs. 50,000. My brother also sent
me a ruby weighing 12 tanks which had belonged to the jewel chamber of Mirza
Ulugh Beg, the successor of Mirza Shah-rukh ... on this ruby were engraved in the
Naskh character the words 'Ulugh Beg b. Mirza Shah-rukh Bahadur b. Mir Timur
Gurgan.' My brother Shah 'Abbas directed that in another corner they should cut the
words:
Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat, 'Abbas
'The slave of the King of Hofiness, 'Abbas' in the Nasta'liq character. He had
this ruby inserted in a jisha (turban ornament), and sent it to me as a souvenir"; and
then he adds that he had engraved in another corner ""Jahangir Shah b. Akbar Shah"
and the current date. Here we find Shah 'Abbas referring to himself by the same
formula he used in the vaqfnameh on the porcelains, and Jahangir using a phrase
similar to the one on the white Hung-chih bowl.
A Hung-chih dish with yellow glaze in the Victoria and Albert Museum carries
"2 Cf. Fourteenth-century blue-and-white, p. 22, n. 33, where I gave this mark as Shah Jahan
Shah Akbar. Further study makes the new reading entirely admissible, and in terms of chronology
it is the logical choice. Cf. p. 146 below.
"3 Tuzuk-i-JahdngJri or Memoirs of Jahangir, vol. 2, pp. 161-162.
Op. cit., p. 195.
THE NON-CHINESE MARKS
57
a similar inscription together with a date on the twenty-eighth day of the second month
of A.H. 1021, which corresponds to February 1612. As it was not possible to get a
photograph of the mark in Isfahan, the latter is reproduced here on plate 6, J, by kind
permission of the museum, and it will be seen that these Mughal inscriptions were cut
with a finer and more dehcate line than that ordinarily used by Mohammad Hosein,
the Khorasan lapidary who carved the vaqfndmeh for Shah 'Abbas. Most of those
were done in a rather thick stroke, and the glaze was often badly scratched around the
inscribed words; but as a glance at the examples on plate 6 will show, some, especially
those on the white wares, were executed with considerable finesse. Another piece
with a Mughal inscription is the early fifteenth-century blue-and-white flask belonging
to Mrs. Walter Sedgwick which bears the name 'Alamgir referring to the emperor
Aurangzeb and a date corresponding to 1659-1660.'''
Also in the Chehel Sotun and also unphotographed is a blue-and-white bottle
with a Portuguese inscription, a type of which at least two other examples are known.
One is in the Victoria and Albert Museum,"'' and another is in the Walters Art Gallery
in Baltimore, which has kindly given permission for its reproduction here (pi. 6, L).
That in the Victoria and Albert Museum has the neck cut down and is mounted with
a silver cover; under the base is the 4-character mark Ta-ming-nien-tsao in a double
circle. The main designs are all different, with ducks and aquatic plants on the vase
just described, lions playing with brocaded balls and streamers on the Walters piece,
and leaves among tight scrolls on the Ardebil example. The two latter are marked
with the characters Wan-fu-yu-t'ung on a cash symbol; and all three have the same
decoration on the upper shoulder and around the base, and the same Portuguese
inscription written upside down in two lines on the lower shoulder. Obviously copied
by a Chinese who had no idea what they meant, the letters are crudely drawn and
difficult to decipher; and they differ slightly from one inscription to another although
it seems likely that they are misunderstood versions of the same text. Laid out in
two lines as written, the Isfahan inscription, with the vase inverted, looks Hke this:
'f(£op^A/vj>ov£A\£ri'for\6rAiv
While he finds some of it completely baffling and is extremely reluctant to do more
than suggest what the rest might possibly be. Prof. C. R. Boxer of Kings College very
tentatively offers the foflowing partial transcription: "o mandou fazer na era de
1552 reina . . . ," the end of which could be understood to read "reina[ndo El Rei
OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 44.
King, A document in Ming porcelain.
58
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
D. Joao III]." This would mean, "So-and-so [presumably a name, but unreadable]
had it made in the era [= year] of 1552, reign[ing King John III]"; and such a for-
mula is not uncommon in Portuguese epigraphy.
For the rest, the non-Chinese marks on the Ardebil porcelains are single letters
or groups of letters that cannot be read as words, or merely signs; and it can only be
guessed that they are ownership marks. A selection of these is illustrated below, and
all appear on early fifteenth-century wares. The curious mark "^r is found on blue-
and-white, on white, and on one polychrome piece all dating from the late fifteenth
and early sixteenth centuries.
• • • •
• • •• •
• ••• • • • . •
Examples of the undeciphered marks drilled in the bases of eariy fifteenth-century dishes.
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY
On an auspicious day in the fourth month of the eleventh year of the Chih-cheng
reign, which fell between 26 April and 25 May, 1351, a certain Chang Wen-chin
of Hsin-chou fi#i in Kiangsi Province made an offering of two flower vases
and an incense burner; and the two vases survive today in the collection of the Per-
cival David Foundation of Chinese Art, School of Oriental and African Studies, Uni-
versity of London. Their inscriptions supply the details of the event. Their large
size (25 inches) has given the decorator ample space to record a cross section of his
repertory, and this together with the distinctive physical characteristics they exhibit
has made it possible to use them as guides to the identification of a mid-fourteenth-
century type. A number of pieces which have not fallen readily into the well-known
fifteenth- and sixteenth-century categories have gradually proved themselves quite at
home with the David vases until the family has now assumed a respectable size and is
rather generally recognized. In addition to the isolated pieces in various collections,
the principal corpus of this ware is divided between the two great collections of the
Near East. The 3 1 pieces in the Topkapu Sarayi have already been pubUshed,'" and
the 32 examples in the Ardebil Collection form the subject of this chapter. The de-
scription of these pieces therefore presents an opportunity to review the distinguishing
characteristics of the group as a whole. This was done in prehminary fashion for the
fourteenth-century wares in the Topkapu Sarayi; and further study and the close ex-
amination of additional material have tended to support the thesis advanced by the
writer at that time that "these wares may, with a high degree of probability, be as-
signed to the fourteenth century, and the decorative repertory that distinguishes them
may be regarded in a general way as the fourteenth-century blue-and-white style."
The Ardebil examples add nothing new to previous notions about the physical
characteristics of the ware. All are large and heavy, boldly potted, and neatly finished.
The bases are unglazed, and the paste is white with a tendency to be coarser in grain
and less thoroughly prepared than in the finer early fifteenth-century wares. Probably
because of lack of care in the process of wedging, small air bubbles were left in the
clay, and these account for the Httle holes to be seen in the edges of broken fragments
as well as for the slight cracks and openings which often appear on both glazed and
unglazed surfaces of the finished wares. Most pieces show a reddish tinge wherever
the body is left exposed; and the degree of redness varies so much that no particular
condition can be cited as typical, a state of affairs further complicated by the fact
Cf. Pope, Fourteenth-century blue-and-white.
59
60
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
that the natural surface of the base was sometimes altered by the use of sUps or washes
before firing and of abrasives after firing.
The bases themselves usually bear spiral traces of the wheel, and the foot rims of
the dishes and bowls are sturdy and neatly finished. On the large dishes there is a clear-
cut angle between the inner slope of the foot and the bottom although the degree of the
angle varies widely; and occasionally it is replaced by a curve. Examples of the vari-
ous types are illustrated on plate 139. The bowl foot rims are high, thick, and strong,
and the larger ones appear to have been added after the bowls were thrown. This is
not always evident in the case of undamaged pieces, but the foot of 29.319 (pis. 23
and 141) has certainly been added, while those of the type represented by 29.320
(pi. 24) seem to have been cut from the bowl body itself. Fostat has yielded a num-
ber of fragments of bowls of related types which permit close examination of this
structural detail. In every case the foot has been hollowed out of a sohd piece of clay;
the central depression is shallow as compared to the outside height of the foot, and the
rim itself is much thicker in relation to its total diameter than is the case on later wares
(pi. 131). On the vases this area shows greater diversity than among vessels of other
types; broad, low, rounded rims are the rule, though they are by no means distinctive.
Such foot rims occur in fact from these earliest examples of blue-and-white kuan and
mei-p'ing right on up through the sixteenth century; and while it appears that the foot
rims of bowls and dishes may have some value as hints to chronology one is tempted
to say that, in the case of vases, the cutting of the foot rim per se is almost meaning-
less. Long habit will make it difficult to refrain from saying that such and such a foot
rim seems right for the period, but in the over-all consideration of any vase this detail
probably merits the least serious attention.
SHAPE
At present the range of known shapes is rather limited, and this collection in-
cludes nothing we have not already seen in the Topkapu Sarayi. Nineteen of the 32
pieces are large dishes 16 to 18 inches in diameter, with one piece exceeding 22 inches.
All have flattened rims about evenly divided between those with plain and those with
foliate edges; and on some of the latter the extreme outer margin of the lip is raised
in sUght relief. Next most numerous are the five mei-p'ing, then come three kuan, two
bowls, two rectangular bottles, and the lower half of a double gourd. Other known
fourteenth-century shapes not found here are bottles, stem cups, vases with handles
(e.g., the David vases and related types), and miscellaneous oddities like the Oxford
stem bowl, miniature altar sets,'" etc. The inscription on the David vases, it will be
"8Cf. AyersinOA, 3, no. 4 (1951): n5-U\;OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 18;PMA9.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPE
61
remembered, speaks of an "incense burner," and this and other shapes still un-
known to us may be expected to turn up some day.
So conspicuous is the blue-and-white decoration as a new factor in Chinese
ceramic history in the fourteenth century that it seems to have distracted attention
from the emergence at the same time of a whole new series of ceramic forms. Among
these, the large dishes are not only the most numerous but the most revolutionary. In
Han, T'ang, and Sung times a dish more than a foot in diameter seems to have been
rare; some are known in Yiieh ware and among the san-ts'ai wares of T'ang, but most
of the latter are flat with only a sHght rim and the whole dish is raised on three short
legs. In no case do they approach the generous proportions of the present dishes with
their broadly curving cavettoes and wide flat rims. Occasionally a small dish of Chiin,
Lung-ch'iian, or Ting ware shows these characteristics; but only one known piece of
the latter ware has the flattened rim with foliate edge and the generous cavetto of the
blue-and-white examples. In shape, proportion, and in the disposition of the decora-
tion it is very similar ""; but the foot is low and narrow, and the base is glazed over.
At first glance this might seem to be a rare example of the prototype, on a small scale,
of the big foliate dishes; but it has been assigned to the thirteenth century which does
not exclude a Yiian Dynasty date, and it may possibly be later. A few large celadon
dishes of similar form have been given Sung attributions; and while these will be dis-
cussed at greater length below in connection with the Ardebil celadons, it may be
noted that there is very little documentation to justify such an early date, and most of
them seem to be later. It is not impossible that some of these spacious dishes may have
been made in Sung times, but the sudden increase in popularity which they obviously
enjoyed in the fourteenth century must be considered a result of the wave of influence
which at that time swept across to China from the Near East where related forms had
long been in use.
Another new form is the large bowl with inturning rim (pi. 23) which is first seen
among the mid-fourteenth-century wares and which lasted, as far as we now know,
only little more than half a century. The shape with flaring rim which came on the
scene at about the same time (pi. 24), however, lived on, with minor changes in pro-
portion, to become one of the standard Ming Dynasty types.
Among some 650 pieces bequeathed to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford by Francis
Mallet of Bath about 1947 is a large blue-and-white tripod since pubhshed by Denis Barnham in
OA, I, 1 (1948) : 33-36 and by Jenyns in his Ming pottery and porcelain, plate 13B. Jenyns informs
me that in a letter, now in the British Museum, Mallet once wrote Hobson suggesting that this
might be the lost incense burner made to accompany the David vases. There seems to be no
record of Hobson's reply. I am incHned to agree with Jenyns that the piece is from a provincial
kiln and may date from the second half of the fifteenth century.
Cf. Hobson, et al. Chinese ceramics in private collections, p. 41, fig. 86. The dish is now
in the British Museum; it is lOi inches in diameter.
Cf. Pope, op. cit., plates 20-22.
62
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
The vase known as the mei-p'ing is not a new form at this time for abundant ex-
amples are known in the Tz'u-chou wares of Sung; and Ting, Ch'ing-pai, Chiin, and
northern celadon types are also known.'" A survey of the many published pieces
shows a considerable degree of variety in the form; and although the attempt does not
seem to have been made, a detailed study of the several shapes might prove useful as
an aid to establishing a more precise chronology than we now have. Too many pieces
are simply labeled "Sung" without any further ado; and certain ones among them
when examined closely seem not to be so early. As a preliminary generality it may be
observed that the characteristic Sung mei-p'ing of Tz'u-chou ware has sloping shoul-
ders and sides that taper down to the foot in a single long curve sometimes almost ap-
proaching a straight line. In Ming times the shoulder is higher and more square while
the sides take a more or less noticeable reverse curve as they come down to the foot.
As an over-all result the early vases have a rather slender shape, or, if broader in pro-
portion, they look somewhat egg-shaped, whereas the Ming examples are more squat
and sturdily planted on their widened bases.''' The fourteenth-century mei-p'ing as
seen here on plate 25 show the intermediate profile that might be expected between
the two extremes. Sloping shoulders and a sHght reverse curve near the foot are evi-
dent, and this group also presents a detail in the proportions of the neck that seems to
be limited to this time. This member takes the form of a truncated cone with the sides
tapering inward in almost straight lines from the shoulder upward to the lip. No. 29.408
is the purest type in this respect, and even on 29.406 and 29.407, where there is a
sUght curve, the tendency can still be traced.''' The typical early fifteenth-century
neck is symmetrical in its curve, equally wide at top and bottom. (See facing page.)
The kuan vase too is distinctively Chinese with origins in some of the san-ts'ai
wares of the T'ang Dynasty; and while there is more variety in this broad heavy form
all through its history, a detailed study of all the known types might also prove
rewarding.
It is hard to say what prompted the transformation of the old pilgrim flask form
into the cumbersome rectangular bottle with shoulder loops (pi. 28); but there ap-
pears to be no other possible prototype. Only one example is known in another ware,
"2 A curious green mei-p'ing was published as "Late T'ang" in Hobson's Eumorjopoulos Cata-
logue (vol. 1, no. 380), but neither the shape nor the glaze is convincing.
123 (^f Trubner, Chinese ceramics, nos. 186 and 187. Both these mei-p'ing are labeled Sung,
but while 186 is a typical Sung shape, 187 has an entirely different profile which can hardly be
earlier than the fourteenth century. The style of the incised decoration confirms this impression.
Consideration of this detail tends to support the fourteenth-century attribution of the Nelson
Gallery mei-p'ing that is PMA 10, a piece about which I expressed uncertainty in my Fourteenth-
century blue-and-white (p. 32, n. 44); it also forces reconsideration of the fifteenth-century attri-
bution of PMA 87 which, on this and other grounds, I now believe may be of fourteenth-century
date.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPE
63
and that is the large piece of Tz'u-chou type now in the British Museum Hobson
called it "Yiian?" and this seems Uke an acceptable attribution though one which may
make it contemporary with its blue-and-white counterparts, thus leaving as much
mystery as ever about its origin.
Another innovation at this time is the so-called "double-gourd" vase, which
has not been noticed in earher wares. Its origin too is obscure.
^ ^ n
29.408 29.409 29.402
Sketches of three mei-p'ing vases illustrating the characteristic proportions of this form in the fourteenth
(29.408), fifteenth (29.409), and sixteenth (29.402) centuries. Variations occur in each period, and the existence
of many unclassified pieces makes it impossible to establish any comprehensive rule; but each of these three is
typical. The neck is perhaps the most striking feature, and this detail is shown enlarged below each example.
The outlines are drawn to uniform scale to emphasize the forms.
Although not included in the Ardebil Collection, the stem cup is a well-known
form in early blue-and-white which also seems to have achieved its first great popu-
larity at this time. Again certain examples in other wares, Tz'u-chou, Ting, and Lung-
ch'iian among them, are known, but there is no evidence for dating any of these
earher than the fourteenth century, and some of them may be later. As in the case
of the large dishes mentioned above we must look for a prototype in the Near East.
The question of Islamic influences on Chinese ceramic forms has been studied at some
^-'^ Cf. Hobson, Eumorjopoulos Catalogue, vol. 3, no. C299.
The English term is a misnomer. Hu-hi as the Chinese call it, simply means "gourd,"
not "double gourd"; and the typical form of that fruit is imitated in this type of vessel.
64
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
length by Basil Gray/" and there will be occasion to refer to this work again in the
chapter on the early fifteenth century; but his remarks on the stem cup introduce cer-
tain problems that should be examined in relation to these fourteenth-century wares
because at the time he wrote no serious attempt had yet been made to distinguish
between the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century porcelains. Summarizing those features
of the Ming porcelain stem cup which he beUeves point to its origins in West Asian
metalwork, he fisted (p. 54) the following points: (a) "the knop in the stem, cor-
responding to the more or less pronounced ridge at the same point in the porcelain
stem cup"; (b) "the bowed or splayed hollow stem sometimes closed at the foot";
(c) "the lip everted at a rather sharp angle which seems more characteristic of metal
than of ceramic practise." In commenting on this, two things should be noticed: first,
the stem cup he illustrates (his pi. 7e) is an early fifteenth-century type and hence
does not properly belong among the earUest Chinese porcelain examples ^^®; and sec-
ond, among what is generally recognized as the earUest group, there are two quite
distinct types. In one case, the bowls are of small diameter with deep sides and a sharp
angle at the lower edge where the bottom turns toward the center. These have the
knop on the stem and the splayed foot, which he relates to the similar features on the
metal prototype."'' The other type, which seems more numerous, has quite a different
profile; the bowl is shallow in proportion to its diameter, the lip is everted in a gentle
curve, and the stem, which has no knop but is often fluted horizontally in a manner
reminiscent of the bamboo, is hardly splayed at all but only widens very gently toward
the base."" No doubt the former type is related to the West Asian metal form adduced
by Gray, although in most instances these latter have almost vertical Hps often
strengthened by a thickened edge; and while some of them flare sUghtly they are
hardly ever "everted at a rather sharp angle." The second type with shallow bowl,
on the other hand, although similarly making its first appearance at this time, seems
to lack any ancestors either Near Eastern or Chinese, and the riddle of its origin re-
mains to be solved.
Because of the hmited number of fourteenth-century wares known to us, this dis-
cussion of shapes is no more than preliminary. In the course of time, as new pieces
come to light, our knowledge of the repertory may be expected to grow, and we shall
^"TOCS, 18 (1940-1941): 47-60.
^-^ A similar stem cup with a Hsiian-te mark was PMA 66.
"^Cf. TOCS, 16 (1938-1939): plate 3c, right. The knop, although so small as to be almost
invisible in the photograph, is nonetheless present. The stem cup next to this is similar except that
it has a coffee-brown glaze on the exterior; each has a single Sanskrit character in underglaze blue
on the inside. Another brown stem cup of this shape, this time with a Chinese character in blue on
the inside, belongs to the Nelson Gallery, Kansas City.
"ocf. PMA 4-8; and OCS Catalogue, 1953, nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, for a variety of examples.
Cf. the series of silver stem cups published in Smimov, Argenterie Orientale, pis. 96-100.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION
65
gradually acquire a more balanced and fully rounded understanding of the ceramic
output of that period. In the meantime, the above observations may serve as a basis
for further studies of the question of shapes, a subject which has not yet received the
attention it deserves and which may be expected to shed additional hght on some of
the troubUng problems of chronology.
DECORATION
The most striking thing of all about these porcelains is the blue with which they
are decorated and the way it is applied. Although a normal range of variation is to
be seen between individual pieces, and atmospheric conditions in the kiln have pro-
duced every effect from pale and even grayish blue to rich dark shades approaching
navy and often revealing specks of blackish brown, the color is generally strong and
vivid. The reasons for this are not far to seek. The cobalt, wherever it came from,
was certainly of excellent quahty; and while no records have come to light, it may be
assumed that in those early years it came, along with the technique of using it, from
the Near East. And in addition to the quaUty, it was exceptionally striking because
of the way it was handled. As comparison with any fifteenth- or sixteenth-century
blue-and-white will show, it was applied to the body more freely, with a broader brush
and a bolder hand. The men who decorated these wares had more of the painter in
them and were obviously men of spirit and imagination still uninhibited by the de-
mands of mass production and not yet broken to the copybook. In this quaUty of
freedom and spontaneity Ues the greatest difference between these early blue-and-
whites and all those that were to follow, a situation nowhere more strikingly demon-
strated within the limits of a single collection than in these porcelains preserved in the
Ardebil Shrine. One type within this fourteenth-century group deserves special men-
tion, and this is the series of dishes on which the design is executed by leaving the pat-
terns reserved in white against a background of dark blue. The technique does not
produce the calhgraphic hne that is so conspicuous in the ordinary blue-on-white
wares, with the notable exception of the serpentine waves on the borders, but it makes
a bold and formal design wherein the imagination of the painter is given its fullest play
in the separate details rather than in the over-all composition. These white-on-blue
wares are among the most spectacular ever made, and why the technique was largely
discarded sometime near 1400 one can only surmise the matter of taste must cer-
A marked Hsiian-te bowl in the Freer Gallery of Art is so decorated but seems to be very
rare (Pope, Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art, p. 16, no. 51.4); and the nearest thing to
this style is found on those early fifteenth-century wares that show white dragons against grounds of
blue waves (e.g., 29.403 and 29.471 on pis. 50 and 53 in the present volume). After this time, no
backgrounds seem to have been painted with blue; where solid blue occurs it has evidently been
applied by some other method giving a rather different effect, or else to consist of a blue glaze.
66
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
tainly have been a factor. For the rest, one can only venture the suggestion that with
the end of the Yiian Dynasty, perhaps because of curtailed production or because ex-
port control was imposed, the best quahty cobalt became scarcer. Such textual
evidence as remains indicates that even during those Ming reigns when it was available
it was highly treasured; and obviously this trick of filhng in the background used up
more cobalt, so that economy not only put an end to the general use of this style but
left its mark on the whole character of the design in years to come.
Intimately related to the quality of the blue and the manner of its application is
the nature of the designs deUneated on the surface of the porcelain. It is of particular
interest because at this moment, with the perfection of this new technique, there came
into being a whole new cycle of ceramic decoration, a vast and complex assortment
of motifs that was to grow and develop with undiminished fertility almost to the end
of the Chinese Empire. Yet it is no contradiction to say that by no means everything
was new. As will be seen, at least one form was as old as Shang, and indeed the whole
range of Chinese ornament was drawn upon, combined with new elements, elaborated
and refined into a decorative repertory probably never surpassed in richness and
variety. In the course of the Ming and Ch'ing Dynasties, it was adapted to use in
lacquer, textiles, jade, ivory, metalwork, etc., with such modifications as the nature of
each medium required, until it pervaded every phase of decorative art; and in the six-
teenth century it was this repertory that first opened European eyes to the full splendor
of the Chinese artistic genius.
The large dishes, which comprise more than half of the Ardebil group and about
the same proportion of the known pieces, all have flattened rims about evenly divided
between those plain and those with foliate edges, and each lot has its characteristic
decoration. The circular dishes are almost always decorated in blue on a white
ground (pis. 7-15). Borders of diamond diaper pattern predominate in this group,
and classic scroll, crapemyrtle scroll, and concentric waves are also found. With a
single exception the cavettoes are decorated with the heavy wreath of lotus blos-
soms with spiky leaves which is so widely used that it almost assumes the status of a
hallmark of the period. It is also common on the outsides of dishes in both groups
though occasionally replaced by lotus panels. The decoration of the central areas
falls into two main types dominated by aquatic and terrestrial plants, respectively. The
usual aquatic scene is a lotus pond, sometimes including ducks, and there are several
examples of large fishes surrounded by symmetrical arrangements of eelgrass and
other water plants. Land scenes customarily show one or more traditionally stylized
garden rocks and a variety of plants, which may include bamboo, banana, grape,
The only exception noticed thus far is a dish acquired in 1954 by the Victoria and Albert
Museum (CI 0-1 954); no doubt others may come to light.
Pope, op. cit., plate 7a.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION
67
morning-glory, and watermelon. Lotus is sometimes thrust into these combinations,
and occasionally phoenixes and ch'i-lins appear on the scene. Whatever the nature of
the composition, the round frame provided by the bottom of the dish is always crowded
with details so that, except in those cases where a large bird, animal, or fish exercises
a stabiUzing influence, the over-all effect is rather confused. The single large dragon
against a white cloud above a sea of concentric waves, although representing the
water element, does not really conform to either of the type groups; but the beast
itself is a splendid example of the albino group of the fourteenth-century dragons."'
The second lot of dishes, those with foliate rims, has a greater variety of decora-
tion, most often in the white on blue style. In some instances this is modified by the
introduction of a rim, a cavetto or even a center lifted bodily from the blue-on-white
repertory. The typical rim carries a band of serpentine waves, and the cavetto is
decorated with a peony wreath more often than with any other single motif. In general
both rim and cavetto are treated as elements in an over-all concentric pattern that
covers the whole dish so that it is often difficult to tell from a photograph where the
cavetto ends and the bottom begins. Perhaps the most striking motif encountered
here is the cloud collar point used as a frame for compositions made up of other ele-
ments. It appears to be peculiar to dishes of this group, as it has not been noticed on
the ordinary blue-on-white dishes with plain rims. It may point inward from the rim
or properly outward from the center (pis. 16, 17, 18, 21), and the degree of round-
ness of each point varies greatly. Sometimes the outlines are flattened and joined to-
gether so that the whole thing resembles nothing so much as the foliate rim of a T'ang
mirror or indeed the rim of the dish itself (pi. 18). Lotus panels, which are commonly
found on all blue-and-whlte, are also pressed into service as frames on the inside of
these white-on-blue dishes (pis. 19, 21). The core of these concentric patterns varies
in scale from a single blossom to an aquatic scene with egrets, which gives the whole
dish an essential orientation (pi. 18).
Aside from these two groups are occasional dishes on which the white-on-blue de-
signs are combined with areas borrowed from the normal blue-on-white repertory.
The three examples in this collection all have foliate rims. This rim and the white-on-
blue peony wreath in the cavetto are the only elements that distinguish 29.123
(pi. 22) from a standard blue-and-white dish with an aquatic scene in the center. The
other two offer more exceptional variations. The peony wreaths have been modeled
in shp so that the flowers are raised in slight reUef, and the curious white-on-blue bor-
ders, each showing a vine with what may be identified as chrysanthemums (appearing
alone on 29.129), and gardenias and crabapple flowers have been treated in the
same slight relief by means of slip.
Examination of the forms outUned above will show that there is almost no pos-
Op. cit., p. 4L
68
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
sibility of confusing these fourteenth-century dishes with those of any other period
once the main characteristics are well in mind; and the same general principles are
applicable to porcelains of other shapes although the distinctions may not always be
so clear-cut. The two fourteenth-century bowls in the collection are unmistakable
products of the period. Most striking is 29.319 (pi. 23), a magnificent example of
the white-on-blue style on the inside, while the outer surface combines a broad band of
white peonies against a blue ground with a classic scroll band and lotus-petal panels
from the blue-on-white repertory. No. 29.320 (pi. 24), on the other hand, is a more
usual type of which several examples are known and a good many fragments have
been recovered from widely scattered sites. The decoration is made up of standard
elements from the fourteenth-century repertory, and the handling of the blue is char-
acteristic of the time.
Vases of mei-p'ing and kuan shapes dating from this period are generally dec-
orated in horizontal bands from three to eight in number although exceptions have
been noted."** Dragons, aquatic scenes with large fish, and figure scenes, perhaps
from the drama, are sometimes used,"' but for the most part the main zone of decora-
tion is filled with a large, richly painted peony scroll (pis, 25 and 26) ; on 29.480 (pi.
27) this has been combined with peafowl, and where the peonies are repeated in a
narrower band on the shoulder, phoenixes have been worked into the pattern (pi. 25).
The great lotus scroll with spiky leaves does not seem to have been used for the prin-
cipal decorative element but is often found playing a secondary role on the shoulder
where it sometimes serves as a setting for legendary birds and beasts. Around the
bases the lotus panels stand tall and bold framing a variety of forms including small
circles, various abstract scrolls, and formalized lotus buds; and sometimes they are
accompanied by curious elements which look like the tips of inverted panels placed
with their points spaced over the gaps below (pis. 25 and 26). On the shoulders of
some vases, the panels serve in a pendent position to frame auspicious objects (pi.
26). A mei-p'ing in the Isfahan group (pi. 26) has four large cloud collar frames on
the shoulder; in the one illustrated a praying mantis carries a bee among fruiting
grapevines. Another unusual variation on this piece is the appearance of symbols in
the lotus panels around the base.
In addition to the kuan and mei-p'ing, vase forms include the two rectangular
vessels with rounded shoulders (pi. 28). One is decorated with two peafowl among
peonies on one side, a pai-ts'e and a phoenix among lotuses on the other, and chrys-
anthemum sprays on the narrow ends; the other has two peafowl amid peonies on
E.g., Pope, Fourteenth-century blue-and-white , plate 27; and OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 19
(which was no. 431 in the sale of the Amim-Muskau Collection at Lempertz Kunstauktionshaus,
Koln, May 1951).
E.g., Pope, op. cit., plates 26, 32, 39a; PMA 27; another mei-p'ing so decorated in the
Victoria and Albert Museum is published, by Jenyns, Ming pottery and porcelain, plate 8B.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 69
each side beneath imposing cloud collar patterns, and lotus sprays on the ends. In
addition to the two examples of this curious form in the Ardebil Collection, three
others are now known, all decorated with dragons."* The handsome double gourd
vases of this period are represented at Ardebil by no more than a fragment, the
lower half of a piece decorated with peonies (pi. 27).
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
At the present writing something hke a hundred pieces of blue-and-white have
been found assignable to the middle decades of the fourteenth century by virtue of
their stylistic and physical relationships with the David vases dated in correspondence
with 1351; and another group of smaller and lighter wares has also been generally
accepted as belonging to the same century on less precise grounds."" The striking
homogeneity of the former group and the structural and decorative affinity it displays
for the dated documents have won for it a high degree of acceptance among students
of the subject. So far, however, Uttle attention has been given to the external evidence
which might be brought forth in support of the conclusions thus reached. Two such
bits of evidence exist, and while they have not passed unnoticed, they have not been
examined in the minute detail they deserve in view of their importance for the problem
at hand. These are the finds of related material recovered from the two sites of Hama
and Kharakhoto, almost at the opposite ends of Asia, for which termini near the end
of the fourteenth century are demonstrable, in the one case on historical grounds and
in the other by the nature of the associated finds. Both will be treated at length in due
course by full-scale publications of the expeditions which worked on the ground; but
in the meantime, preliminary articles have appeared, and because the writer has had
the opportunity of examining most of those finds which relate to the problem of four-
teenth-century blue-and-white, it seems worthwhile to set forth the results of this
study in as much detail as possible.
Hamd
Hama fies on the Orontes River in Syria some 75 miles south of Aleppo on the
road to Damascus. Here a series of Danish archaeological expeditions has traced
human occupation from neolithic times forward to the fourteenth century.'" The last
138 Qi Pope, op. cit., plate 25; Hobson, Eumorjopoulos Catalogue, vol. 4, plate 7, no. D42; and
OCS Catalogue 1953, No. 29.
Cf. Pope, op. cit., plates 33, 34, 35.
^^''The latter types are well represented by nos. 1-6 and 8-14 in OCS Catalogue, 1953; and
PMA 1-9. Some of these may in fact date from the early part of the century as suggested in the
former publication.
Ingholt, Rapport preliminaire sur le premiere campagne . . . (1934), p. 59; and Rapport
preliminaire sur sept campagnes . . . (1940), p. 154.
70
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
city to occupy the top of the ancient mound flourished from the end of the twelfth
century to the middle of the fourteenth as evidenced by the coins recovered, and prob-
ably enjoyed an even longer maximum span of life from about A.D. 950 to 1400. The
latter date is conclusive in every sense of the word because in that year the city was
destroyed by Timur never to rise again on its age-old foundations, for when Hama
was rebuilt after the conqueror had passed on his way, the new city arose at the foot of
the mound and has been there ever since.
Among the material excavated on that uppermost level which perished under
the sword of Timur were a few fragments of Chinese porcelain including celadon, the
white wares of Te-hua, and blue-and-white. The pubUshed shard of the latter ware
is apparently the base of a coarse bowl decorated with roughly drawn floral pattern in
the center; but it is among the numerous Near Eastern copies of Chinese blue-and-
white that even more interesting evidence is to be found. One of these has already
been pubHshed,"' and thanks to the kindness of Dr. SeUm Abd el-Haq, Director of
Antiquities of Syria, and of Dr. Vagn Poulsen of the Nationalmuseet in Copenhagen,
it has been possible to pubhsh it here in two views together with three other hitherto
unpubhshed pieces in the latter museum (pis. 131-132)."^
It is the decoration of these wares which is of particular interest. The small
round saucer features a single large leaf surrounded by lesser foliage; and this central
leaf, unlike anything ever seen in the decoration of Islamic pottery of the time, is
clearly a copy of one of the spiky leaves which have been found to be characteristic
of the Chinese repertory in the fourteenth century. Another out-and-out imitation of
a fourteenth-century Chinese dish is a larger piece with the foliate rim. The form itself
is not found in the Islamic repertory, and the over-all conception of the design is based
on some of the fourteenth-century blue-and-white we have examined in the Ardebil
Collection. The rim has fohate scroHs with blossoms not closely related to anything
that has so far turned up in the fourteenth century, but the cavetto design is inspired
by those found on the Chinese foliate dishes with white flowers reserved on a blue
ground (pi. 22) . What remains of the central area suggests that the pattern was based
on melons and tendrils and on certain of the grape leaves found on such dishes as
29.121 (pi. 13). A third piece from Hama is a fragment of what must have been an
octagonal dish or bowl. This form has not yet been noticed among Chinese wares, but
Fischel, Ibn Khaldun and Tamerlane, p. 45. Timur left Hama on 28 December 1400
(p. 104).
1" Cf. Ingholt, op. cit. (1940), plate 47, 4.
Cf. Ingholt, op. cit. (1934), plate 11; and Basil Gray, TOCS, 24 (1948-1949): plate 9b.
"5 In 1952 I had the opportunity of handling the pieces in Copenhagen and found them to be
made of the coarse, rather soft clay that is characteristic of Near Eastern pottery. The poor-quality
glaze is crackled and yellowish, imparting a somewhat muddy tone to what might otherwise be a
fairly decent blue.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 71
the inside of the rim is decorated with scrollwork, and in the center is a lotus plant
clearly composed of elements taken from aquatic scenes Hke those on 29.38, 29.40,
and 29.41 in the Ardebil Collection (pis. 7 and 8). The large dark element in the
center is a sketchy rendering of the side view of the lotus leaf as executed in the Chi-
nese versions, and the lotus blossoms themselves are drawn as clusters of pointed
petals each of which has a white base and a dark tip, a very typical representation on
the early wares. This unmistakable lotus blossom appears five times on the large dish
pubhshed by Ingholt and Gray and shown here in two views (pi. 131, C-D) . The side
view of a large leaf dominates the center of the composition with its dark mass, and
below this the stems are shown tied together with a ribbon. Poulsen and Gray have
found this dish similar in design to the type represented by numerous examples in the
Ardebil Collection assigned to the early fifteenth century and illustrated on plates 30
and 31. These also feature lotus and other plants tied in a bouquet, but beyond this
one detail the similarity weakens. The arrangement of the design from Hama is stiff
and formal, closely crowding the whole center of the dish; the graceful drawing of
the individual stems and flowers found on the Chinese pieces is altogether lacking.
While it might be tempting to attribute this shortcoming to the fact that it is a mis-
understood copy, the first thing to do is to establish just what was being copied; and
the whole spirit in which the center of this Near Eastern dish is painted is that of the
middle fourteenth century when, quite regardless of the subject matter, the decorator
seemed possessed to crowd as much detail as possible into the available space."' The
impression conveyed by this part of the composition is further strengthened by the
treatment of the cavetto where the Syrian painter has made a good copy of the heavy
lotus wreath with spiky leaves, one of the key elements in the fourteenth-century
Chinese repertory. The big leaves are as striking as the blossoms in the over-all effect,
while in the later Chinese version of the cavetto scrolls in bouquet-pattern dishes the
leaves are always subordinated to the flowers in size and importance. As a final detail
it might be noted that the Hama dish has seven blossoms in its wreath, one more than
appears in the standard Chinese wreath of the fourteenth century (pis. 7-15); in the
cavettoes of the early fifteenth-century bouquet-pattern dishes there seem always to
be thirteen (pis. 30-31). The rim of the Hama dish is the poorest copy of all, and
it can only be guessed that the unhappy Syrian painter, perhaps faced with a pattern
he did not understand and lacking both the Chinese brush and the calligraphic skill to
use it, did a makeshift border design as best he could. The outside of the dish bears a
simple linear decoration that is no more than very remotely related to anything Chi-
nese. It may be that the painter had in mind the outline of the lotus panel form, but if
he did, it made only a very superficial impression on his thinking.
Poulsen, Burlington Magazine, May 1948, p. 150; and Gray, op. cit., p. 28.
The prototype of the design on this Hama dish is clearly the lotus bouquets shown on the
Kharakhoto bowl fragments (pi. 133, nos. 13-14) which is the forerunner of the more sophisticated
bouquet of the early fifteenth century.
72
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
These fragmentary pieces of Near Eastern pottery, found on a site with a known
terminus in 1400 and bearing between them several striking elements of design that
are purely Chinese in origin, are of interest on two counts. They not only confirm the
date at which this repertory was current in China, but also provide evidence that these
great blue-and-white dishes reached the shores of the Mediterranean at this early date.
Kharakhoto
Some 3,700 miles east of Hama and about 500 miles to the north, in the Chinese
border province of Ningsia, lie the ruins of Kharakhoto. This ancient walled city
has been visited by several archaeological expeditions,"^ and in spite of the rich
treasures it has yielded it still holds hidden in the desert sands its most absorbing
mystery: exactly when and how it met its end. For it must have been an imposing
city situated on the delta of the remote Etsin-gol with its massive 30-foot clay walls
surrounding an area about 380 by 460 yards; and it is surprising that no account of
its fate has yet been found in recorded history. A number of clues seem to point to the
fact that it was abandoned at the end of the Yuan Dynasty, a view that a small but
stubborn group of sceptics disagrees with for reasons which we shall discuss presently;
but it will be of interest to bring together here all the evidence that has been put for-
ward thus far and to examine it as a whole.
Turning to the available textual sources, we find it mentioned by the Venetian
traveler Marco Polo, who passed that way on his journey to the court of the Great
Khan; he called it Etzina and mentioned only the fact that it was 12 days march north
of Kan-chou and another 40 days march thence north to Karakorum, both of which
accounts are substantially correct."' Unfortunately, he left no account or description
of the city iself . Apparently the latest contemporary record of the name is that in the
"® Col. P. K. Kozlov discovered the ruins in 1908-1909, and his preliminary report, The
Mongolia-Sze-chuan expedition of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, appeared in the
Geographical Journal, vol. 34, no. 4 (October 1909): 384-408. His book Mongolia, Amdo and
the dead city of Kharakhoto was published in Petrograd, 1923, followed by a German translation
in 1925. A new Russian edition appeared in 1947. In May 1914 Sir Aurel Stein made an extensive
survey of the site and surrounding territory which is described in Innermost Asia, Oxford 1928,
vol. 1, pp. 428-506; vol. 3, plates 49-66. A field party of the Sino-Swedish Expedition under the
leadership of Dr. Sven Hedin worked there in 1934-1935, and preliminary notes have been pub-
lished by the late Dr. Folke Bergman in History of the Expedition in Asia, pt. 4, Stockholm, 1945,
pp. 148-151. The untimely death of Dr. Bergman cut short the work of this able young archae-
ologist while he was in the midst of preparing the large publication covering his findings on this
expedition; after some years of delay, it is now being carried to completion by his colleagues.
Yule, The book of Ser Marco Polo, vol. 1, pp. 223-224; Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo
. . . , vol. 1, pp. 160-161.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 73
Sino-Mongolian inscription of 1362 in memory of Prince Hindu/'" where both ver-
sions of the bilingual text state that one of his sons held the office of tsung-kuan of the
I-chi-nai circuit iJ]r^^73rg&4i^.''' I-chi-nai is the Chinese transcription of the MongoUan
name Isina which Marco Polo romanized as Etzina; and it occurs in the geographical
section of the Yiian history/" That book was completed in 1370, and the passage
which describes I-chi-nai makes no reference to the destruction or abandonment of
the city. On the other hand that part of the geographical section of the Ming history
which deals with the same area fails to mention the place/'' While this omission con-
stitutes negative evidence, it cannot be ignored; evidently something happened to
cause the disappearance of the name I-chi-nai from the Ming records.
Most abundant, of course, is the evidence provided by the finds of the Kozlov,
Stein, and Hedin expeditions; and in the huge mass of material recovered from the
site nothing has yet been found which can with certainty be assigned to the Ming
Dynasty. It is at this point that the sceptics raise their voices, and this statement will
not be allowed to pass unchallenged, for there are in fact two places in the pubhshed
reports where Ming attributions have been suggested. They are worthy of close
scrutiny. In Kozlov's first English report he lists among the finds "paper money (as-
signats of the Min dynasty)" "*; and the presence of Ming money certainly suggests
that the place was alive and functioning in Ming times. But this was a premature state-
ment on the part of Kozlov and understandable in view of the superficial similarity
between the paper currency of Yiian and Ming. The notes in question were even then
being more carefully studied; and in the same year in which the above-mentioned re-
port appeared in English, a Russian scholar published an article on Yiian Dynasty
currency based on the eight paper notes recovered by Kozlov.'" He described them
as having been printed in 1287, adding that the issue was vahd in circulation until
the end of the dynasty in 1367 although after 1309 it was devalued as much as sixty
percent. Similar data were published by A. Ivanov in 1910 in a study of paper money
i^oCf. Cleaves, HJAS, 12 (1949): 1-133.
"1 Op. cit., p. 35.
1" Yuan Shih, ch. 60, p. 25vl (1739 ed.) or p. 6278d (K'ai-ming ed.). See also Hsin Yuan
Shih, ch. 48, p. 6721b (K'ai-ming ed.). Another occurrence of the name in the same history
mentions it as the place to which the great minister, commander-in-chief of troops, princes and
provinces, Prince T'o-t'o^^, was exiled in disgrace in the first month of 1355. Cf. Hambis,
Le Chapitre CVIII du Yuan Che, 70. Professor Cleaves tells me that the Yiian Shih abounds in
references to I-chi-nai; see also his latest article An early Mongolian loan contract from Qara Qoto
in HJAS, 18 (1955) : 1-49; especiaUy note 13 on page 19.
i"Mmg Shih, ch. 42, pp. Ilr6-23v3 (1739 ed.) or pp. 7178b-7180d (K'ai-ming ed.). In
both Yiian and Ming times aU the northwest was included under Shensi.
Cf. Geographical Journal, loc. cit., p. 387. Min is the Russian transcription of Ming.
Kotvich, Ohraztsy assignatsii luanskoi dinastii v Kitae.
74
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
in China up to the fifteenth century and he included illustrations of three Yiian
Dynasty notes, one dated in the Chung-t'ung reign ( 1260-1264) and two in the Chih-
yiian reign ( 1264-1295) . Yiian paper money was also included in Bergman's finds/"
but so far no Ming money has appeared.
The other pubHshed reference to the Ming Dynasty in connection with the Kha-
rakhoto finds occurs in Hobson's descriptions of some of the porcelain fragments
brought back by Stein.''® Writing with his usual caution and within the framework
of what was known about blue-and-white a quarter of a century ago, his attributions
were extremely guarded. In the case of the bowl base decorated inside with ducks in
a lotus pond (K.E.II.Ol), he ventured to say "(Sung?)"; but that was the only in-
stance in which he suggested a date in connection with the descriptions of the indi-
vidual pieces. In his more general comments on the finds he used the phrase "mostly
of Ming types," and again he wrote "some of the blue and white, which one would ex-
pect to be as late as the sixteenth century."
Apparently these two references form the basis of all the scepticism about the
terminal date of Kharakhoto; and it is clear today that both are erroneous. Kozlov
was evidently unable to read Chinese and so misinterpreted the date on his paper
money; and Hobson, ignoring the evidence implicit in Stein's dated documents, none
of which was later than 1366,"" and working with the still elementary knowledge of
blue-and-white that was then current, did not see that the six fragments he described
all represent typical fourteenth-century wares.
The strongest support for this view is provided by the much larger body of ma-
terial recovered from the site in 1931 by the late Folke Bergman. Among the several
hundred shards brought back were about 120 pieces of blue-and-white, and the writer
has had the opportunity of examining this material in detail during two visits to Stock-
holm, once in the summer of 1938 and again in October 1952. There is nothing about
any piece in the group to suggest a date later than the fourteenth century. Through
Ivanov, Bumaznoe obraztsenie v kitae do XV B. For help in finding and translating these
Russian references I owe thanks to the kindness of Melvin Kessler and Rudolf Loewenthal.
15" Bergman, op. cit., p. 149n. Cf. also his article Some Chinese paper currency from the Yuan
and Ming Dynasties which appeared posthumously in Contributions to ethnography, linguistics and
history of religion (Publication 38 of the Sino-Swedish Expedition), Stockholm, 1954. This paper,
which just came to my attention as the present volume was in proof, discusses the Yiian Dynasty
notes found at Kharakhoto by both Bergman and Kozlov, and compares them with Ming notes
from other sources.
Stein, Innermost Asia, vol. 1, pp. 462 (A.K. 018), 464 (K.K. 045, 047), 501 (K.E.
11.01), 503 (K.E. XV.02); vol. 2, p. 1014; vol. 3, plates 51 and 57.
Op. cit., vol. 2, p. 1014.
Op. cit., vol. 1, p. 441. It is, of course, possible that Hobson, working with the porcelains,
was unaware of the work of other scholars who were studying the documents even though the find-
ings of both were ultimately published in the same book.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 75
the kindness of Dr. Gosta Montell, editor of the Reports of the Sino-Swedish Expedi-
tions, who obtained the permission of Dr. Sven Hedin, it has been possible to repro-
duce a selected group of fragments (pis. 133, 134). They are numbered from 1 to 60
and are described here with reference to certain published examples of the types of
complete pieces they evidently represent.'"
1 and 2. The partially restored bowls of two stem cups decorated outside with blue 3-cIawed
dragons and inside with 4-cIawed dragons and lotus panels in slip surrounding a blue flaming jewel
in the center. (Cf., PMA 4, 5, 6, 7, and OCS Catalogue, 1953, nos. 9, 11, and 12.)
3, 4, and 5. Small fragments with similar crosshatched blue dragons very sketchily drawn.
6. Fragment of the base of a dish with a well-drawn, small 3-clawed dragon in the center; a
piece of this type has yet to be seen.
7 and 8. Two views of piece of a large jar decorated with a dragon with small white scales
hke that on Ardebil 29.47 (pi. 15); the inside of the shard shows sloppy glazing.
9, 10, 11, and 12. Four shards from a large vase decorated with a blue dragon with large
scales like those on the David vases and on Sir Harry Garner's rectangular bottle (Cf. Pope, Four-
teenth-century blue-and-white , pi. 36, and OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 29).
13. The inside of a bowl decorated with chrysanthemum scrolls surrounding a central design
of a lotus bouquet tied with a fillet. This is the design copied by the Near Eastern potter on the
dish from Hama, and the difference between it and the early fifteenth-century lotus bouquets as
shown on plates 30 and 31 are so obvious as to make comment unnecessary. The chrysanthemum
scroll is repeated on the outside of the fragment.
14. Bottom of a bowl with aquatic decoration; a lotus leaf, and two blossoms are shown. Out-
side are lotus panels.
15. 16, 17, and 18. Three fragments, one shown in two views, with ducks from typical aquatic
designs. Compare the duck on 15 with one on 29.38 (pi. 7). Those on 16 and 18 each hold a
leafy stem in their beaks; 17 shows the unglazed base of 16 with its unusually thin high foot taper-
ing down to a sharp narrow rim.
19. Rim of a bottle-shaped vase or possibly a ewer. (Cf., PMA 22 for a possible prototype.)
20 and 21. Base of a bowl with aquatic design in the center; 21 shows a simple low foot rim
with a smaller raised ring inside made of rather poorly prepared clay.
22 and 23. Two views of a large fragment from one of the big mei-p'ing of the period. The
cloud collar frame surrounds foliage and probably a flying bird of which some wing tips and part
of the body remain (cf. Pope, op. cit., pi. 39b), and below this are the band of classic scroU and
the large peony design typical of many of these vases as shown on 29.408 (pi. 25). The inside of
the shard shows one of the usual joints between the sections of these tall wares, and the roughly
finished surface of the wet clay is characteristic of this group.
24, 25, and 26. Three shards from another vessel of the same type; the type of design seen
to the left of the cloud coUar on 24 is illustrated on one of the mei-p'ing in the Topkapu Sarayi (cf.
Pope, op. cit., pi. 29).
1" Reference is also made to the preliminary descriptions of Dr. Sommerstrom of the Ethno-
grafiska Museet in Stockholm who is preparing the material for publication. My thanks are due
him for his kindness in supplying me with a copy of his notes.
76
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
27 and 28. Two views of the bottom of a vase with traces of lotus panels around the base and
blurry classic scroll around the foot. As is sometimes the case on these smaller lighter wares, glaze
is applied inside the foot, but the area is carelessly prepared and the whole job very roughly done
with coarse gravelly matter adhering to the foot rim. The inside view shows the customary rough
finish of unglazed areas.
29 and 30. Base of a smaller vase of similar shape with better drawing and stronger blue. The
structure of the foot is clearly shown in 30; and again this area is roughly glazed.
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. Six fragments of various vessels illustrating some typical forms
of the lotus panel and its filling; 37 is the unglazed inner surface of 32, a polygonal vase, perhaps
with eight sides. Sommerstrom has described it as seven-sided which would be most unusual, but
as the type of design has not yet been identified with that on any whole piece, it is not impossible
that a completely new type is represented here.
38. Base fragment of a small jar with flat base and decoration of pendent blade forms around
the lower sides; a few small covered jars of this type are known (cf. OCS Catalogue, 1953, nos. 3,
4, and 6; although the form is known in Sung celadon, I am not convinced that the covers of 4 and 6
really belong).
39 and 40. Two views of the base of a bowl with double vajra design in strong blue in the cen-
ter surrounded by the remains of a peony scroll painted in paler blue washes. The outside view
shows a splendid example of one of the typical bowl feet of the fourteenth century; the cleanly cut,
rather thick foot is flat on the bottom and slopes down at an angle to the shallow base with conical
center inside.
41 and 42. Two views of the base of a smaller and more crudely made bowl with floral deco-
ration inside.
43. Piece of the inside of a small bowl showing part of a duck (or goose) flying amid foliage;
outside are lotus panels.
44. Fragment from the foliate rim of a large, thinly potted bowl showing lotus scrolls painted
in outline and wash.
45. Rim fragment of a large dish showing lotus blossom and scrolling foliage on the inside.
46. Small fragment of the rim of a vessel that is hexagonal at the shoulder but has a round
mouth; a band of crude thunder pattern surrounds the rim above traces of floral designs.
47. Small fragment from the leg of a stand to a miniature vase. (Cf. PMA 9.)
48. Scroll-shaped fragment probably from one of the buttresslike members which supports the
spout of a ewer by linking it to the neck. A ewer with pierced support of this type has not yet come
to light.
49. Fragment of a bowl decorated inside with a willow tree like that on the mei-p'ing in the
Victoria and Albert Museum (cf. Jenyns, Ming pottery and porcelain, pi. 8B). Outside are lotus
panels.
50. Small fragment of a vessel of undetermined shape with a hitherto unrecorded design;
inside unglazed.
51. Piece from the foliate rim of a small bowl decorated with a border of the cash diaper
pattern above foliage painted in thin washes.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: HUNG-WU
77
52. Fragment of a bowl rim decorated with peony leaves in outline and wash.
53. Rim fragment from a bowl decorated inside with a border of crapemyrtle and blackberry
lily as seen on 29.320 (pi. 24).
54 and 55. Two shards decorated with lotus scrolls.
56. Fragment showing an unidentified 5-petaled flower amid scrolling foliage.
57, 58, 59, and 60. Four fragments showing various drawings of the chrysanthemum. The
combination with the upper parts of pendent blades on 59 suggests the type of vessel represented by
38 above. (Cf. OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 4.)
In summary, the facts about Kharakhoto are these: the site yielded documents
dating no later than 1366, Yuan Dynasty currency, and abundant fragments of four-
teenth-century blue-and-white; the two latest occurrences of the name are in an inscrip-
tion dated 1362 and in the Yiian history which was completed in 1370. Conversely,
nothing attributable to the Ming Dynasty has been noticed among the finds from the
site, and the name does not appear in the account of that area in the Ming history. If
the city continued to be inhabited in Ming times, it is curious that no evidence of that
fact has come to Hght. So httle has been done with the history of that region in the
fourteenth century that much source material remains untapped, and it is quite pos-
sible that one day the story may emerge. Until that time the secret of Kharakhoto
remains inviolate.
HUNG-WU
This chapter on the fourteenth century cannot be brought to a close without
some mention of the great upheaval that took place when the Chinese finally turned
on the invading Mongol, drove him from the land, and resumed control with the
founding of their last great native dynasty, the Ming. This crucial moment in history
presents one of the most perplexing of all the unsolved questions in the development
of Chinese ceramics: how, if possible, to distinguish Yiian from Ming porcelains.
Chu Yiian-chang, the militant Buddhist monk, placed himself on the Dragon Throne
on the 23d of January 1368 and called his reign Hung-wu. Thus almost the last third
of the century was Ming; and it would be of the greatest interest if a change in style
at that precise moment could be demonstrated, a change that would permit us to
say with conviction that such and such wares are Yiian while another group is clearly
Ming. Unfortunately for those who concern themselves with the minutiae of the his-
tory of the things man makes, matters are seldom so conveniently arranged. The
evolution of style is gradual and continuous, and in retrospect it may be seen to have
conformed with other developments, economic, social, or political, that have left their
mark on the human scene; but it is rarely if ever that a change of regime is accompanied
78
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
by a sudden break in man's personal habits with reference to himself, his family, or the
things he makes and uses as part of his daily life. So there is no reason to expect that
the forms and designs of blue-and-white porcelains made, used, and exported by the
Chinese showed any more difference between 1360 and 1370 than they did between
1370 and 1380 or in any other single decade thereabouts.
For the purpose of our immediate subject, there is a 75-year hiatus in reliably
documented pieces between the David vases, made in the last Yiian reign, and those of
the beginning of the Hsuan-te reign when date marks began to come into common use;
and it will be remembered that Chinese writers have left us no contemporary informa-
tion. Such remarks as have been culled on the wares of early Ming come from the
random notes of later authors which suffer from brevity, vagueness, and imperfect
transmission by subsequent editors. In the investigation of this long period of three-
quarters of a century we are left, therefore, to fall back upon the wares themselves.
Those of the mid-fourteenth century now stand fairly well defined; and a solid tradition
of connoisseurship, both Chinese and Western, lends confidence to the recognition of
an early fifteenth-century group which some prefer to define more precisely as Yung-lo.
The questions to be faced concern the filling of that void: How long did the mid-
fourteenth-century style last? When did the early fifteenth-century style which cul-
minated in Hsiian-te begin? The answers to both obviously depend on our abiHty to
point out a body of wares in which elements of the two styles, so widely different in
their essentials, are found together. This is of course no easy matter, for the repeated
and minute examination of any group of porcelains makes it ever more evident that
many of the small differences to be observed in drawing and structural details as
between one piece and another need not be attributed to anything more than a normal
diversity in the habits and skills of two men working side by side. Chronological
factors may or may not be involved, and the problem of determining the relative import
of the temporal and the human elements in accounting for such differences is often
extremely difficult.
A number of pieces that have proved hard to classify may possibly be assignable
to the Hung-wu period on these grounds; and without insisting on such an attribution,
this is the place to examine their qualifications. One small family is represented in the
Ardebil Collection by five small dishes (29.271-275) of which four are illustrated on
plate 29. Eleven more, some of them decorated in underglaze red, were shown in the
Philadelphia Exhibition.'" All have the physical characteristics of the mid-fourteenth-
century group just examined; the paste has the gaps and flaws we have found to be
typical, the spiral wheelmarks are often evident on the base, and the unglazed surface
shows an orangy red looking in some cases as though it had been smeared on. In
general, they are heavy and strongly potted. It is in the decoration that they reveal
PMA 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: HUNG-WU
79
qualities common to both earlier and later styles. The tendency to crowd the surface
with the design is still evident, but at the same time a new taste for more orderly
arrangement begins to make itself felt. This is particularly evident in the cavetto of
the large dish with foliate rim and in those of the cup stands and small dishes where the
ornament is broken down into separate floral sprays,"'' The central designs of the two
large dishes combine the crowded feeHng of the fourteenth century with the sense
of order conveyed by the unified orientation of the single peony spray and the
centers of the small dishes also betray conflicting inspirations in the fact that some
of them are decorated with concentric bands surrounding a small medallion, as
were the earher white-on-blue wares, while others are covered with a single large
spray (29.274). Two further details in this group should be noted. On the large
foHated dish, the wave border reflects what must surely be a last feeble attempt
to draw the vigorous serpentine waves of the midcentury repertory before they
passed into the styUzed fifteenth-century formula; and where they occur, the lotus
panels cling to the earUer tradition both in the over-all proportion of the frame itself
and in the nature of the elements they contain.'*''
The suggestion that these wares, or some of them, may be assignable to the Hung-
wu reign by virtue of the characteristics just mentioned is not basically upset by the
existence of two small dishes related to the type shown on plate 29, which are marked
with the Hsiian-te nien-hao.'"^^ Both of these pieces, although containing the physical
qualities of the early group, are decorated more nearly in the fifteenth-century style;
and the question of how long any given style characteristic may have been perpetuated
is probably the most insoluble of any that have to be faced in attempting to unravel
the complex history of this art. It is the ever-present possibility of an anachronism that
makes it so diflicult to place with confidence any single piece which shows unusual
features excluding it from an established type group. It is the same thing, on the other
hand, that offers insurance that the study of Chinese porcelain is unlikely to become a
dull and routine exercise. In offering the dozen or so pieces just discussed as one type
that may turn out to fill this obscure gap in the chronology, these facts have not been
forgotten. The proposal is made in the most tentative spirit with the hope that it may
lead to further thought on this vexing question.
Several pieces of other types suggest themselves for inclusion in this period. A
bowl in the Topkapu Sarayi is potted with the rim turned slightly inward, recalhng,
PMA 20, 23, 24, and 25.
PMA 19 and 20.
165 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, and 23.
"® One of these, a badly warped waster in the private collection of Sir Percival and Lady David,
is marked on the upper part of the outside just below the flattened rim; the other, which I saw some
years ago but have since lost track of, is marked in tiny characters on the edge of the rim itself.
80
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
although not exactly reproducing, the form of some of the fourteenth-century pieces'";
the base is unglazed and slightly concave with no rim. Around the outside is a long,
sUm, 3-clawed dragon with small white scales and a thin, pointed snout, one of the two
well-known fourteenth-century types."* The fact that this dragon shows none of the
characteristics assumed by that beast in typical early fifteenth-century representations
points to an early date; yet in spite of the implications of the inturning rim, the potting
of the bowl is refined to a degree beyond anything found in the mid-fourteenth-century
group. The same is true of a small dish in the collection of Mrs. Alfred Clark in that
it combines the qualities found in both periods. Especially noteworthy are the dragons
drawn in slip on the inner surface of the dish and in blue outside; they are in the mid-
fourteenth-century style in every way except for the fact that they have five claws, an
indication that they are likely to have been drawn after the Ming Dynasty came into
power."' The same dragons appear again on two large mei-p'ing one of which is in
the Burrell Collection in the Glasgow Art Gallery,""" and in this instance the hint
provided by the decoration is supported by the shapes of the vessels which do not
conform with anything yet seen in the mid-fourteenth-century or earUer groups. The
high rounded shoulders, the profile of the neck, and the strong reverse curve of the
sides all combine to suggest a later date.''' Aside from this Burrell example the
earliest mei-p'ing to show this exaggerated pinching of the waist is the handsome early
fifteenth-century mei-p'ing in the Ardebil Collection (29.403, pi. 50), and there may
not be more than a decade or so between the two.
The extremely tentative nature of the proposals offered in this section cannot be
emphasized too strongly. In the long run they may or may not turn out to have some
Zimmermann, Altchinesische Porzellane im Alten Serai, plate 35. Cf. no. 29.319 on plate 23
of the present volume, and Pope, Fourteenth-century blue-and-white, plates 20-23. A single bowl
with inturning rim is known to be painted in the early fifteenth-century style (see 29.328 on p. 86
below and plate 46).
Cf. Pope, op. cit., p. 41 and plates 13, 25, and 39a; and also Ardebil 29.47 on plate 15,
which, however, has a stubbier snout.
Cf. FECB, vol. 6, no. 2 (June 1954) : p. 11.
Cf. Jean Gordon Lee in ACASA, 6 ( 1952) : 33-40. In the second paragraph of her article
Miss Lee describes this piece as having "all the attributes of a 14th century product," and in the
description of Cut III (p. 39), which is a drawing of one of the cloud forms, she says "1st half of
14th century." My reasons for assigning it to the closing decades of the century are given here. The
pair to this Burrell mei-p'ing once belonged to the celebrated Chinese collecter Wu Lai-hsi, although
it was not included in his sale at Sotheby's (26 May 1937); its present whereabouts is unknown.
Photographs of this piece in the Percival David Foundation show that the two Chinese characters are
not blurred as on the one in Glasgow. They are ch'un "spring" and shou "longevity" written in their
seal forms.
Cf. p. 62 above. Even in those instances where the neck is curved on fourteenth-century
pieces, it is never wider at the top as it is on the Glasgow piece.
THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY: HUNG-WU
81
merit; but for the time being they are put forward as possibiHties. The problems in-
volved in assigning a group of wares to the last third of the fourteenth century are such
that the answers must lie in the wares themselves; and on all these pieces it is the com-
bination of elements recognized to be characteristic of two distinct periods separated by
a long hiatus that suggests an intermediate attribution to Hung-wu.
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY
Although no perceptible hne was drawn across the path of styhstic evolution as
the year 1399 drew to a close, we can see in retrospect that the dawn of 1400 marked
the beginning of what was perhaps the most important century in the history of the
ceramic art. De gustibus . . . , and there are those who prefer other periods; Han,
T'ang, and especially Sung each has its ardent devotees while the tastes of others are
more nearly satisfied by the inimitable virtuosity of the eighteenth-century enamels.
Each dynasty, each reign had its own special qualities, each made its particular contri-
bution to the total development; and to compare one stage with another serves no pur-
pose. But seen in its full perspective no one century so deeply influenced the course of
ceramic history the world over as that in which the technical and artistic aspects of
blue-and-white were simultaneously brought to perfection. Porcelain itself was already
an old story in China. For some centuries it had been covered with high-fired felspathic
glazes of perfect transparency, and in the century just ended decoration in underglaze
blue and underglaze red had moved beyond the stage of experiment. It would seem as
if, with these technical accomplishments well in hand, the Chinese potter, like an
apprentice at the close of his training, his newly mastered tools all sharp and shining
in his kit, were ready to give free rein to his imagination. What lay ahead was in the
realm of genius, and in the fashioning and decoration of porcelain the Chinese potter
of the fifteenth century yielded to none. To paraphrase one of the most learned and at
the same time most sensitive scholars in the field, one who unfortunately did not remain
among us to share in the identification of the wares discussed in the previous chapter,
it could be said that in the second half of the fourteenth century the lotus budded, in
the first half of the fifteenth century the flower opened in all its freshness, and in the
closing half of the century the leaves began to tremble in the breeze.""
For the wares produced from 1350 on display all the vigor of an art just old
enough to have found its strength, and the power of the drawing and the spontaneous
and restless crowding of every surface are evidence of the enthusiasm and boundless
energy of youth still uncurbed by the restraints of sophistication and maturity. As we
have seen, there is no signpost to mark the moment when that lusty spirit began to feel
the demands imposed by refinement, but no doubt this was a gradual process in the
latter decades of the century, in the Hung-wu reign. The few pieces pointed out as pos-
sible products of that period are enough to suggest that definite forces were at work;
and in the wares which form the subject of this chapter that gradual trend toward
order and elegance has almost run its course. Without insisting upon the precise dates
Brankston, Early Ming wares of Chingtechen, p. 3.
83
84
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
imposed by the accessions and deaths of rulers, for some of these pieces may have
been made in the closing years of the fourteenth century and others may date from
after 1435, most of them are undoubtedly Yung-lo and Hsiian-te.
Sixty-three representative examples selected from the 183 blue-and-white pieces
of this period in the Ardebil Collection are illustrated on plates 30-55. For the most
part they are familiar types recognizable as the wares usually assigned to the first 35
years of the fifteenth century, although a number of the designs and some of the forms
have not been noticed hitherto. None of the pieces bQavs a. nien-hao, but the abundance
of parallels between members of this group and a large number of pieces with accepted
marks in other collections makes identification easy; and the over-all family resem-
blance within the group as a whole is striking. It is this latter fact that makes it pos-
sible to identify certain pieces which may have new and unfamihar characteristics and
to feel a fair degree of assurance in assigning them to this period.
Certain essential qualities give this group its unity and distinguish it from the
wares of the fourteenth century as well as, though perhaps to a less marked degree,
from those which were to follow. The attempt to describe porcelains in words is in-
evitably frustrating, as there is no substitute for handling and comparing the actual
pieces, and to essay precise descriptions of the minute details involved would hardly
serve any purpose. For this reason the following paragraphs are not intended to be de-
finitive but only to convey the most general impressions. Perhaps the key word which
may be used to characterize these wares is "refinement"; it is evident in every aspect of
the blue-and-white of the early fifteenth century. The paste is finer in grain and of a
purer whiteness, indicating a more complete mastery of the techniques of preparation,
and as a result the little cracks and imperfections found in the fourteenth century are
largely gone. The potting is more skillful, the forms more elegant, and such details
as bases and foot rims are finished with more loving care; the orangy-red ferruginous
coating which was so unpredictable in the fourteenth century is now more carefully
controlled.
The blue of the decoration is strong and rich, and in the heaviest concentrations
the tone is extremely deep but always modulated and lively. One of the characteristic
features is the occurrence here and there of spots where the supersaturation of cobalt
was such that the glaze could not contain it and a black or rusty-brown patch appeared
on the surface. These may have been the result of insufficient grinding of the pigment
so that small lumps remained, and the technique of preparation must have been per-
fected over the years for the spots seem largely to have disappeared in Ch'eng-hua
times. Or possibly a change in material had something to do with it as Chinese tradi-
tion holds that the imported su-ni-po M'i^^ blue was no longer available after Hsiian-
te, and in Ch'eng-hua a local cobalt was used.'"
173 Qi j'^^ Shuo, ch. 3, p. 4r3-5 (Bushell, trans, p. 59). Although, as Sir Percival David has
pointed out (TOCS, 11, p. 36), Chu Yen does not quote the Tsun-sheng-pa-chien, a passage of
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPE
85
In the drawing of the decoration this new period provides the most striking evi-
dence of the trend toward refinement in taste. The disorder and crowding of the
fourteenth-century compositions gave way to a more orderly and spacious conception
of the decorative scheme; less blue was used, and the white of the porcelain played a
more important part in the visual effect. The various forms are drawn in bold, sure
strokes, in most instances without preliminary outline; and this characteristic style of
the time is found in nearly all the floral decorations which largely dominated the
repertory. On the other hand, the technique of outUne and wash was not altogether
unknown,"* though it seems not to have come into general use until the second half of
the century.
SHAPE
Increasing inventiveness on the part of the potters, larger output in response to a
growing demand, higher rate of survival because the wares were more highly esteemed
and consequently better cared for — all these help to account for the wider variety of
shapes we know in the early fifteenth century. On the other hand, while many new
types must have been produced, it must not be forgotten that our knowledge of four-
teenth-century wares is still Hmited, and we cannot dogmatically say any particular
shape was not used then and now appears for the first time. Such observations as can
be based on pieces now known to us, however, suggest that certain characteristics of
shape are typical of the period even though they be found in vessels of already familiar
types, and a good many more appear to be new. Among the latter are the smaller,
more refined and delicate wares made for the scholar's study and perhaps purely for
the delectation of small circles of dilettanti and for ornamental purposes. Although
many of these do not seem to have been sent abroad in early times,"' the Ardebil Col-
lection includes a number of extremely fine early fifteenth-century pieces which make
it difficult to determine just where the fine was drawn between those types which might
be exported and those which were jealously guarded at home.
As in the case of the fourteenth-century wares, the large dishes with unglazed
bases are by far the most numerous. Flattened rims, both round and foliate, are pres-
ent as before, and among the latter a new style seems to have appeared in which the
cavettoes were molded to match the foHations (pis. 37-38, 41); but special interest
attaches to the many dishes with plain rims (e.g., pis. 30, 31, 39, 42, 43) which have
yet to be seen among the fourteenth-century wares. Why this simple and obvious form
strikingly similar import occurs in that work, ch. 14, p. 51r5-7 (cf. Brankston, op. cit., p. 40). But
even this, the earliest record we have of such a statement, was published only in 1591, more than a
century after the events it describes; and the origin of the tradition is not yet known.
"* Notice, e.g., the leaves on the melon vine on 29.61 (pi. 40).
"^Cf. OCS Catalogue, 1953, p. 4 (the pages are unnumbered). Sir Harry Garner's explana-
tion that "they were evidently regarded as too precious to be sent out of China" may well be right.
86
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
should not have been in use earUer remains to be explained; or if it was, one wonders
why, out of almost 50 known dishes, not one of this type should have turned up.
Among the bowls a striking new form with deep sides, plain rim, and small foot is often
called the "lotus bowl" because of its resemblance in form to the seed pod of that
flower, lien-tzu 31^ (pis. 46-47). Another innovation in blue-and-white is the shal-
low conical bowl (pis. 47-48) which had appeared earher in Ch'ing-pai, Lung-ch'iian,
and Ting wares. The bowl with inturning rim (pi. 46) is mentioned not as a new form
but as the only example of this relatively rare shape to have come to light with decora-
tion in the early fifteenth-century style. Like the dragon bowl in the Topkapu Sarayi,
this is a survival of a short-lived mid-fourteenth-century shape, and whereas the Istan-
bul piece retains certain of the decorative characteristics of its period and may still
belong to the latter part of the century,"" this piece exhibits the fully developed style
of the period to which it is here assigned.
The vases show even greater inventiveness than do the bowls and dishes. The
familiar form of the mei-p'ing, while remaining entirely recognizable, undergoes some
striking modifications. In general these are slightly broader in proportion to their
height, the shoulders are less sloping, and there is a reverse curve of varying degrees as
the sides drop down to the foot. The neck, too, has now lost its conical form and is most
often curved symmetrically so that it is equally wide at top and bottom (pis. 50-5 1 )
In this group is the finest mei-p'ing to have survived from this period (29.403), a vase
of imposing proportions and faultlessly executed decoration which is in flawless con-
dition. The exaggerated slimness of the waist while found on a number of coarser
examples of uncertain date is otherwise unknown in pieces of this quality. The large
bottle-shaped vases (pi. 53) are now seen for the first time, and both round and flat-
tened examples are known."*
A number of the new forms introduced in the early fifteenth century were based
on Islamic prototypes. Although only a few of these are found in the Ardebil Collec-
tion, it may be of interest to take a brief look at the family as a whole and examine the
origins of the several shapes.'" The small flask with flattened sides and two handles
joining the shoulders to the short straight neck, the form called "moon flask," yiieh
p'ing, by the Chinese follows an Islamic glass vessel as old as the tenth century and
Cf. pp. 79-80 above.
Cf. p. 63 above.
See TOCS, 25 (1949-1950) : plate 2c; also PMA 36; OCS Catalogue, 1953, plate 5a, which
is decorated with a dragon; and Ottema, Chineesche ceramiek, p. 106, fig. 121.
"»Cf. Gray, TOCS, 18 (1940-1941): 47-60. I propose to note only those Chinese shapes
which, appearing for the first time in the early fifteenth century, show clear evidence of influence
from the Islamic world.
Cf. Lamm, Mittelalterliche Gl'dser und Steinschnittarbeiten aus dem Nahen Osten, vol. 2,
plate 2, no. 25; plate 7, no. 3; plate 158, no. 3. A fine Chinese example is shown in Garner, Oriental
blue and white, plate 30 A.
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPE
87
one of the outstanding examples of the prototype is that in the Toledo (Ohio) Museum
of Art which has been dated about the year 1300 (pi. 135, A) . The form not only was
adopted by the Chinese but was modified to produce another which is in effect a
marriage between the flask and the "double gourd" (29.458, pi. 55). The neck has
been extended and expanded in the middle, and the handles are raised in a more grace-
ful arch and somewhat flattened in horizontal section.'^^ Even with these changes,
however, the ancestry of the type remains clear.
It has long been customary to speak of Ming ewers as "Persian" in form; but the
matter is not so simple as all that, and the history of the type involves a number of com-
plex problems. Ewers as such, that is, vessels with spouts designed for pouring, go
back to the huo types of the Bronze Age, and so the idea has a respectable ancestry of
its own on Chinese soil. Ceramic ewers, moreover, were common in T'ang and Sung
times. The shapes that appeared for the first time in Ming porcelain were new, and one
of the things to be determined is how far these were influenced by contacts with the
Near East and how far they were normal developments of existing Chinese forms. No
doubt both factors were involved. One type, that with heavy body, abrupt shoulder,
and tall cylindrical neck (e.g., 29.439, pi. 55) is obviously based on a well-known
Islamic ewer which was made in both metal and pottery from the twelfth to the four-
teenth century."" But this is the less well known type; the one most commonly con-
sidered to be of "Persian" form has a pear-shaped body, flaring lip, and long curving
spout (29.427-30, pi. 54), and for this no Islamic prototype has yet been found."^
It seems rather to be an adaptation of the Chinese yii-hu-ch'un-p'ing, which was known
in Ting, Lung-ch'iian, and Tz'u-chou wares among others and which is the shape of
what may be some of the earhest blue-and-white. Sometime around 1400 the spout
and handle were added, and the shape gradually evolved in the next century and a half
to the high-footed slender ewer of the Wan-li reign (29.423-424, pi. 99). It was this
form in turn that moved westward across Asia as part of the wave of Chinoiserie which
influenced the potters of Iran in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the very wave
of which the Ardebil Collection itself is the outstanding residue. So in the long run
this Chinese form became "Persian," and when it was picked up by the Iranian metal-
Cf. PMA 32 and 69, which illustrate the varying proportions of the neck and the handles.
Cf. Pope, A.U., Survey of Persian art, vol. 6, plates 1282A, 1322-1328; and vol. 5, plate
637B.
This view, first expressed to me by Basil Gray, is revolutionary and still not generally ac-
cepted; but none of those who disagree has been able to produce a convincing prototype. The nearest
suggestion I have yet seen is a metal ewer of the fourteenth century in the Benaki Museum, Athens,
of which D. S. Rice has very kindly given me a photograph (pi. 136, A). Fine though this may be as
an example of the metalworker's technical skill, and in spite of the superficial similarity suggested
by the fact that it has a spout, a handle, and a raised teardrop panel on the side, it is essentially an
ugly piece clumsily conceived in over-all design and can hardly have played much of a part in in-
spiring the very elegant porcelain ewers under discussion.
88
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
workers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (pi. 136, B) its fate was sealed;
ever since it has been the vessel from which is poured the thick coffee of the Near East,
ever since the traveler has returned with his brass or silver ewer set on a tray with small
cups as his souvenir of the lands of Islam. These latter-day horrors in every tourist
bazaar on the cruise routes and every oriental antiquary's shop in the capitals of
Europe have by sheer force of numbers confused the issue and obscured the true origin
of the form. The documentation of these exchanges is not altogether clear, for Iranian
modifications of the Chinese form went back to China from time to time, and one day
the whole story may be filled out in greater detail. For the moment, however, it seems
likely that the so-called "Persian" ewer of the seventeenth century is directly descended
from a Chinese type some two centuries earlier.
Tankards have been the subject of some discussion but are now generally ac-
cepted as early fifteenth century in date. A number of the known examples are marked
Hsuan-te, and with minor variations all are the same type. The form goes back to
about the eighth century in the Near East.''* Persian potters used it widely as early as
the tenth century. That they provided it with a foot and indulged in some variation of
the proportions does not alter the fact that it is essentially the same vessel."^ The
Turkish jugs of the sixteenth century by which Hobson 25 years ago sought to date
this then almost unknown Chinese form are undoubtedly, like so many other Turk-
ish wares of that time, products of the great wave of Chinese influence then being felt
in the ceramic centers of the Near East.
Another form based on an Islamic metal vase is a subject of controversy among
students of Chinese porcelain. This is the small vase with cylindrical neck and base
separated by a body in the shape of a faceted cube. A number of these carry the mark
of the Hsuan-te period and some are unmarked, but doubt has been expressed as to the
validity of this presumptive date.'"' Whatever the solution to this perplexing question
the prototype is clearly an Islamic metal form dating from the twelfth century (pi.
137, A).
The pen box has its origin in the same medium as has the deep basin with sides
sloping inward toward the top and wide-flaring rim, and the latter was also known in
Lamm, op. cit., illustrates two examples from the Caucasus in glass (his pi. 2, no. 15, pi. 8,
no. 10), and a striking carved crystal jug from Egypt (his pi. 80, no. 6), which he calls eleventh-
twelfth century.
Typical variants are illustrated on plates 576B, 592C, 599A of A. U. Pope's, Survey of
Persian art, vol. 5.
Cf. Hobson et al., Chinese ceramics in private collections, p. 170 and fig. 304.
Cf. OA, 3, no. 1 (1950) : 22-23. In that article I suggested a Cheng-te date for these vases;
but while the structural similarities between these and certain of the heavy Cheng-te pieces are un-
deniably striking, I am no longer altogether happy about that attribution. Some of them may be
Hsiian-te, but for the moment I prefer to leave the question open.
"8 Cf. Gray, op. cit., plate 5.
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION 89
Syrian glass as early as the late thirteenth century (pi. 135, B) . The most famous metal
example is the Baptistere de St. Louis, one of the great treasures of the Islamic Depart-
ment of the Louvre."'" A small, squat bowl with contracted mouth also has abundant
prototypes in the Islamic world in metalwork, glass, and even ceramics.'"" Rarest of
all these Islamic types in that only a single example seems to have been noticed thus
far is the pharmaceutical jar of distinctive form best known by its Spanish name "al-
barello" (pi. 138, A) . Prototypes are known in pottery all over the Near East beginning
as early as the eleventh century; and it appears to have gone west with the Moors to
Spain, where it continued until the sixteenth century, by which time it was also known
in Italy."'
DECORATION
Although many of the elements in the full-blown decorative scheme of the mid-
fourteenth century continue to be found on the wares of the early fifteenth century, the
way in which they are used is so different as to change the whole character of the style.
The decorators adopted new ways of drawing the individual elements, and even more
striking is the inventiveness they displayed in combining them. As a result, when these
chronological traits are recognized, there is Httle likehhood of confusion between the
two. Such difficulties as still exist, and they are by no means completely eliminated,
arise from the fact that in all periods blue-and-white was made in various places, places
of which we know little or nothing; and while the principal body of fourteenth-century
wares and the principal body of early fifteenth-century wares, probably made at or near
Ching-te Chen, each has its own special characteristics, there are always strays that do
not fit comfortably in either group. As will be seen later, there are a number of such
pieces in the Ardebil Collection.
Since it is impossible to divide the wares into groups that retain their individual-
ities from all points of view, they are arranged arbitrarily on the basis of form; and it
is appropriate to begin with the large dishes, which are numerically the most important.
The rims of these are decorated in a great variety of ways though the most common
borders are waves, classic scroll, thunder pattern, and sundry floral combinations.
Altogether gone is the diamond diaper pattern that played such an important role in
the middle decades of the fourteenth century. Of the border designs just mentioned
Cf. Rice, Le baptistere de Saint Louis, Paris, 1953. A Chinese example is in Garner, op. cit.,
plate 22B, and there is an unpubHshed one on the Topkapu Sarayi (1472).
100 Pope, A.U., Survey of Persian art, vol. 6, plate 1337; Lamm, op. cit., plate 13, no. 3; and
Wallis, Persian ceramic art, plate 24. All these pieces are assigned to the thirteenth century. Cf.
the Chinese example in OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 51 (no. 7 on pi. 6).
Many examples are pubhshed. Cf., e.g., A. U. Pope, Survey of Persian art, vol. 5, plates
625B, 751 A, 777B; Wallis, op. cit., plates 9, 11, 12; Riviere, La ceramique dans I'art musulman,
plates 9, 20, 96.
90
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
the thunder pattern gained the most in popularity, and this was especially so in
respect to its use on blue-and-white. The design itself was common on the bronzes and
pottery of the Shang Dynasty and thus one of the oldest decorative motifs in China.
The classic scroll was in use on the fourteenth-century wares, and the wave was com-
mon. But somewhere along the line, probably in the still obscure second half of that
century, this latter element had been subjected to such a major change in style as to
make it almost unrecognizable. No longer are the borders alive with the vigorously
calligraphic serpentine waves seen on the dishes we have just examined; the new for-
mula consists of a more static series of forms distributed in various ways around the
rims. Nos. 29.1 (pi. 30), 29.33 (pi. 31), 29.55 (pi. 37), 29.61 (pi. 40), and 29.63
(pi. 41 ) show some of the innovations. Even more diversity is exhibited in the use of
floral scrolls on the borders. The crapemyrtle and blackberry lily combination which
was so common in the fourteenth century survives only in greatly modified form, so
changed m fact that the identification is suggested only for want of a more precise de-
scription of the type of border found on 29.58 (pi. 38). The 6-petaled blossom is still
there and crapemyrtle leaves as well, but these are supplemented by the addition of
conventional lotus leaves. New motifs include a scroll with ling-chih fungus seen on
29.75 (pi. 33), one with tiny serrated leaves as on 29.92 (pi. 34), and miniature lotus
scrolls, highly conventionalized, like those on 29.83 (pi. 33), 29.1 13, and 29.1 17 (pi.
36). In addition to using the continuous scroll, the decorator now began to vary his
borders by means of separate plant forms spaced at intervals around the rim. Evidence
of the variety offered by this new method may be found on 29.60 (pi. 39) and 29.65
(pi. 32) on which the pomegranate, camelHa, and chrysanthemum are recognizable.
The use of the cavetto as a ground for floral patterns also reflects the new attitude
toward decoration, and the heavy wreath of lotus or peony found on the fourteenth-
century dishes now gives way to a series of deUcate and more varied motifs. In most
instances several different blossoms are used on a single vine, and the leaves, always
more difficult of identification, may or may not be appropriate. Even in those cases
where only one type of bloom occurs, the whole spirit of the decoration is lighter and
more elegant. Lotus scrolls appear on 29.119 (pi. 36) and 29.65 (pi. 32), the former
drawn with exceptional skill and inventiveness in the rendering of both the blossoms
and the leaves. On 29.68 and 29.75 (pis. 32, 33) is the plain peony scroll. These
four examples suggest that there was no feeling about the relationship between the
flowers in the cavetto and those in the center of the dish; 29.1 19 has the lotus in both
places, and 29.68 has all peonies; the other two mix lotus with peonies, and peonies
with chrysanthemums, respectively. Cavettoes with several kinds of flowers are more
common, and these are frequently placed in pairs as on 29.1 (pi. 30) and other dishes
in that group where pairs of lotus, chrysanthemums, camellias, and peonies may be
seen among the 13 flowers represented. The odd number indicates that the system of
pairing is not fully carried out on the inside, although it will be noticed that on this
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION 91
group they have placed 14 flowers on the outside of the cavetto in seven pairs. In spite
of these indications of a tendency toward systematic use of flowers, the arrangement
on most types of pieces seems to be variable; some of the blossoms are repeated and
others are used but once. Several of these are illustrated, and perhaps the most out-
standing piece from the standpoint of quaUty is 29.60 (pi. 39) where the sizes of the
flowers are varied and the freedom of the arrangement and facility of the drawing are
comparable to those quahties found on 29.1 19 (pi. 36).
As in the case of the borders, the most striking innovation in the cavettoes of the
early fifteenth-century wares is the use of separate floral sprays or bunches of flowers
instead of the continuous scroll. That this device may have come in fairly early we
know from such pieces as numbers 20, 23, 24, and 25 in the Philadelphia exhibition
and the four small dishes 29.271-275 (pi. 29) in the Ardebil Collection. In its ma-
ture form the most common pattern shows 12 flower sprays consisting of two sets of
six each repeated in order so that each flower is diametrically opposite another of
the same kind. A typical example is 29.101 (pi. 35), and a minor variant is 29.117
(pi. 36), on which each separate spray is encircled by its leafy stem. On 29.58 (pi.
38) the alternate sprays are all fungus and between them are seen chrysanthemum,
lotus, hibiscus, camellia, peony, and rose (?), while the outside carries these six and
six more varieties with no fungus at all. Still other arrangements include a variable
combination of 12 sprays as seen on 29.83 (pi. 33), a mixture of flower and fruit
sprays as seen on the smooth cavetto of 29.64 (pi. 32) , and a uniform pattern of iden-
tical sprays as on 29.63 (pi. 41) where because of the huge size of the dish there is
room for it to be repeated no less than 16 times. It will have been noticed that with
one exception in the present group (29.64) the use of separate flower sprays in the
cavetto is limited to those dishes with foliate rims, and the sprays may be centered
either on the points of the foliation or between them.
The two concentric decorative zones formed by the rim and the cavetto are
almost standard on all dishes of this period, but in some instances when the rim is
plain the whole area serves as the ground for a single design. In the Ardebil Collec-
tion three examples of this treatment were found on the large landscape dishes, which
are remarkable not only in this respect but also for their quahty and size: 29.3 10-3 12
(pis. 42-44) . No two are alike, nor does the design on the outside ever exactly dupU-
cate that on the inside; altogether, including the center designs, more than 30 varieties
of plants have been identified with a fair degree of certainty. They are listed in detail
on the descriptions facing the several illustrations.
Before leaving our discussion of this area some mention should be made of its
outer surface. As has been noted, the design here may or may not be the same as
that on the inside. The group typified by 29.1 has a similar floral scroll both inside
and out varying only in the number of blossoms shown whereas a dish like 29.37
(pi. 45) has a floral scroll inside and dragons among clouds on the outside. The latter
92
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
design then complements the center of the dish rather than the cavetto. Floral scrolls
and separate sprays of fruits, flowers, and fungus seem to be used almost at random,
but so far as has been observed none of these dishes in the typical early fifteenth-
century style is decorated outside with the bold lotus-petal panels which sometimes
adorned those of the fourteenth century. As will be seen on the bowls this element did
not disappear, but it was so greatly changed in detail that it can hardly be confused with
its prototype.
The pattern in the central area of each dish is the largest and most striking, and
it is altogether appropriate that some sort of classification should be based upon it.
Thus it is common to hear of "bouquet plates," "grape plates," "melon plates,"
"dragon plates," and so on. Some of these various types may be noted in more detail
to indicate the range of variety employed. The "bouquet plates" are represented in
the Ardebil Collection by a group of no less than 34 pieces of varying sizes and with
varying borders. Five of these are illustrated on plates 30 and 31. Perhaps better
than any one group they illustrate an important point to be observed in the study of
Ming blue-and-white. Students, collectors, and connoisseurs are plagued by the prob-
lem of distinguishing the wares of the early fifteenth century from copies made in later
years, especially in the Yung-cheng and Ch'ien-lung reigns of the Ch'ing Dynasty, and
many of these copies are excellent beyond any question."" The several criteria con-
sidered in making a comparison usually include the clay, the structure of the piece,
especially the foot, the glaze, the quahty of the blue and the drawing. While none of
these should be neglected, there seems to be a tendency to attach undue importance
to minor differences in the drawing; and the five pieces were selected to illustrate this
point. The bouquet design is the same in every case. A lotus blossom occupies the
center of the composition; at the upper left is a second lotus blossom beside a sagit-
taria; at the upper right are two more blossoms, one somewhat smaller than the other;
below the smaller of these is a seed pod; and at the lower right is a fifth blossom.
Three large lotus leaves are disposed through the group together with aquatic grasses
and three smaller plants that have escaped identification. All are tied together at the
bottom by a bowed filet of some sort, and eight stems protrude below, five curving to
the right and three to the left. While the arrangement never varies, the drawing of the
individual elements and the spacing between separate plants changes noticeably from
one example to another. To single out but a few specific points, the sagittarias on
29.3 and 29.6 are full and plump and closely crowded between the adjoining plants,
while that on 29.21 has long spindly points and ample space between itself and its
neighbors. The wavy stalk to the right of the sagittaria has very small leaves on 29.6
and much larger ones on 29.3; and on 29.21 they are small again but the stalk itself
Cf. TOCS, 26 (1950-195 1 ) : 46-47, plate 13, where an early fifteenth-century ewer is com-
pared with a copy made in the eighteenth century.
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION
93
is extended until it almost touches the bordering circle. The rendering of the lotus
blossoms and leaves varies from dish to dish; and even in these black-and-white repro-
ductions the varying intensity of the blue is suggested. Without pursuing these details
further it becomes clear that differences in drawing technique need not alone be taken
to indicate differences in period. The decoration of these dishes is the work of several
men or even of the same man on several days. If evidence be needed that the porce-
lains were decorated by many men working from master patterns, surely this one little
group provides it; and human coordination being what it is, we should be astonished
not that they are so different but that they are so much alike. Any group of dishes in
which the central decoration was obviously copied from a single master pattern, any
group which we today might call a "set" is likely to show a similar diversity of detail
from one to another.
A glance at the illustrations will show how wide a variety of designs was em-
ployed. Most numerous are those dishes decorated with flowers, a motif which per-
mitted almost infinite variation although the commonest types have two to six prin-
cipal blossoms either growing in Ufelike fashion on a single stem as on 29.65 (pi. 32)
or arranged in a formal and intricate scrollwork as on 29.1 13 (pi. 36). Supplement-
ing the large main flowers are smaller blossoms, sometimes buds, and always leaves.
As on the borders and in the cavettoes, the floral designs in the centers may be
composed of flowers of one variety or several. Peonies are used alone on 29.64 and
29.65 (pi. 32), while 29.83, 29.98, and 29.119 (pis. 33, 34, 36) have only lotus
blossoms, and on 29.75 (pi. 33) is a single spray with three chrysanthemums. The
rest of the floral dishes are decorated with mixed flowers, which may include any of
the above-mentioned three and also camellia, carnation, hibiscus, and others which
are often so stylized as to make certain identification impossible. It is only natural
that this group, which is the largest in numbers, should also display considerable
differences in quality ranging from such superb pieces as 29.119 (pi. 36), 29.65
(pi. 32), and 29.83 (pi. 33), which are unsurpassed of their kind, to dishes like 29.1 17
(pi. 36), which is quite ordinary.
An unusual dish related to this floral group is 29.35 (pi. 40), which is decorated
with three large sprays, one of pine, one of prunus, and one of bamboo. This motif,
known to the Chinese as "the three friends of winter" or "the three cold-weather
friends," sui-han-san-yu j^ilH^, is widely used in decoration and not uncommon on
blue-and-white although customarily the three plants are represented growing around
a fanciful rock in a garden setting."' It is seen on smaller fighter dishes from the
"5 Although we know the combination as early as the mid-fourteenth century, it seems to be
relatively recent. Under san-yii, the encyclopedia Tzu-yuan says, "In recent times painters took
the pine, the bamboo and the prunus and painted them together as the three winter friends; also there
are paintings with the prunus, the bamboo and the rock. Su Tung-p'o who was a literary man and
could also paint said, 'When the prunus is cold, it flowers; when the bamboo is lean, it grows old;
94
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Hsiian-te and Ch'eng-hua periods, and later versions exist in the late Ch'ing reigns."*
This type in which the three large branches alone occupy the center of a rather large
heavy dish seems to be rare."^
Among the dishes decorated with fruits, those with grapes are the best known,
and no less than 1 1 examples remain in the Ardebil Collection. The pattern varies
somewhat in composition but is always based on three bunches of grapes attached,
though sometimes rather nebulously, to a vine with leaves and tendrils (pis. 37-39).
The leaves on 29.60 (pi. 39) differ from those of the others, and it may have been
the decorator's intention to represent a particular variety of grape. The orientation
of this latter design is curious too, for at first sight it seems as though a landscape
foreground were intended; but to set the dish right for this interpretation means that
the grapes assume a horizontal position, which is absurd. This must then be a bit of
rocky moss-grown wall over which the vine is growing.''" Other fruits are melons
(29.61, pi. 40), peaches (29.62, pi. 40), and litchi (29.63, pi. 41),"^ all powerfully
drawn and dominating the decoration of the entire dish. In this respect the whole
fruit group provides a striking example of the change in spirit that had taken place
since the middle of the fourteenth century. For the early painters too had used fruits,
notably the grape and the melon (e.g., 29.120, 29.121, pi. 13), but the grape bunches
were small, and both they and the melons were almost insignificant among the varied
elements of an overcrowded composition. Now in the early fifteenth cenury each
came into its own as a decorative theme and as a test of the painter's skill as well. The
difference is that between a patch of jungle, however skillfully rendered, and a care-
fully arranged still fife.
Not only the most striking but also the most unusual of the early fifteenth-century
dishes in the Ardebil Collection are those decorated with a single landscape scene in
when the rock is deformed, it is elegant; that is why they are the three profitable friends.' " This
latter term san-i-chih-yu H^;^^ in turn goes back to Confucius whose statement Waley {Ana-
lects, p. 205 ) translates, "Master K'ung said, 'There are three sorts of friend that are profitable, and
three sorts that are harmful. Friendship with the upright, with the true-to-death and with those who
have heard much is profitable. Friendship with the obsequious, friendship with those who are good
at accommodating their principles, friendship with those who are clever at talk is harmful.' "
Cf. Kushi, Shina minsho, plate 7, and OCS 1953-1954 exhibition, no. 67 (not illustrated),
for Hsiian-te examples; Ch'eng-hua examples are more numerous (e.g., Pope, Ming porcelains in the
Freer Gallery of Art, p. 23, and PMA, 74); and a poor Tao-kuang example is published in OCS
1953-1954, no. 313, plate 17; the writer owns a Kuang-hsii dish on which the drawing is, if possible,
even less inspired.
"'^ The only other one now known to me is in the collection of Lord Cunliffe (cf. OCS 1953-
1954 exhibition, no. 34, pi. 5).
The same design appears incised on a celadon dish in the Topkapu Sarayi. Cf. Zimmermann,
op. cit., plate 10, where the piece is shown 90° out of proper orientation. See p. 156 below.
Cf. op. cit., plate 12.
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION
95
the center. Only three such pieces are known elsewhere,""' and the fact that so few
appear to have come to light or to have made their way into any of the Western collec-
tions must mean that they were very rare even when they were made; and this is not
surprising for they represent a remarkable achievement from the technical standpoint
alone. In spite of their great size they display perfection of potting in every detail.
The unglazed bases are 1 9 inches across inside the foot rims, very slightly convex with
no sign of having sagged or warped in the kiln, and velvety smooth to the touch; the
rims too are symmetrical and even. Among existing porcelains of the period, this
group is rivaled in size only by the Htchi dish just mentioned (29.63, pi. 41) and a
dish decorated with parakeets on peach branches in a Japanese collection.""
The decoration of these three is similar but not identical. Each shows a land-
scape scene with a point of land protruding from the left into a body of water, while
two smaller points appear at the right, one in the foreground and one in the back-
ground; the left-hand point in each case has on it a stylized garden rock. Although the
composition on 29.310 (pi. 42) is not so clearly defined in the foreground, the gen-
eral plan is the same. Next to the rock in each case is a large plant and this central
group dominates each scene. On 29.310 are two tall stalks of coxcomb, and to the
lower left of this is a narcissus with three blossoms. Above the narcissus and imme-
diately to the left and right of the coxcomb are three nightshades. The two small
plants in the foreground are dandelions, and in the lower right of the composition is a
second narcissus; rising from the distant point in the upper right is the knotweed.
Behind the rock on 29.31 1 (pi. 43) grows a crabapple, a fern is at the lower left,
and above this a Pennisetum japonicum, which appears to have no common name.
The small plant to the right of the rock is a plantain, while the four flowers growing
just across the water from this may be lilies. On the point in the right background a
tall nightshade overhangs two aster plants.
The flora of 29.312 (pi. 42) is more sparse with the central area dominated by
a large pine under which are azaleas. In the foreground is a primrose, on the point in
the right background is palm, and the plant at the left may be a variety of lily.
These scenes are landscapes in the best Chinese tradition, embodying the two
elements essential to the form: mountains, represented as they were in every Chinese
garden by a fantastic rock, and water. And while composed with great imagination
and decorative sense, they are rendered with a remarkable degree of scientific accu-
198 Tvvo are in the Topkapu Sarayi Miizesi in Istanbul, and one of these was lent to the Inter-
national Exhibition of Chinese Art held in London in 1935-1936 where it was no. 1489 in the
catalogue. Cf. also Jenyns, Ming pottery and porcelain, plate 23b. A dish with the same design as
that on 29.310 was published in the fourth exhibition catalogue of the Nezu Museum, Tokyo, 1943,
pp. 26-27.
Cf. Kokka, 711, plate 7. This dish has the Hsuan-te mark written in a line outside the rim;
it is 291 inches in diameter.
96
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
racy, as is evident from the number of plants that can be given their appropriate names.
Though he may have been copying a painted model, the man who executed these was
not a scholar-painter, and the problems he faced in applying the solution of cobalt ox-
ide to the unbaked porcelain body were very different from those involved in painting
with Chinese ink on paper or silk. As the device of suggesting distance by the use of
deHcately graded washes was denied him by his limited mastery of the medium, for that
technique was not developed until the sixteenth century and reached perfection only in
K'ang-hsi, he was forced to provide such indications of perspective as he needed by
mechanical means; hence the arrangement of points jutting out from alternate sides
of the picture at three different levels. Even so, the effect was but crudely achieved.
His desire for botanical accuracy conflicted with the requirements of perspective, so
that although the skeleton of the scene is properly laid out by the three land areas
in retreating order, the plants themselves vitiate the result. In one case the knotweed
on the distant point is as large as the coxcomb in the central group; and in another
the asters on the background spit are almost half as high as the crabapple tree by the
rock. But this is quibbUng; the end in view was not a photographic reproduction of
nature but an impression of a garden scene, and in this our painter has succeeded
admirably. This rare group of dishes shows us the early fifteenth-century decorator at
his most ambitious; the achievement in both conception and execution marks the
arrival of a new era in porcelain decoration.
Flower and fruit patterns and an occasional landscape occupy the centers of
most of the dishes of this period, and other motifs appear to have been used less fre-
quently. The only examples in the Ardebil Collection are two dishes decorated with
dragons, one of which, 29.37, is illustrated (pi. 45). Here a 3-clawed dragon is re-
served in white against blue waves. The monster is delineated in every detail by fine
fines incised in the clay, and only the eyes are indicated in blue. Aside from this cen-
tral area the decoration is in the normal blue-and-white style with floral scrofis in the
cavetto and four dragons among clouds on the outside. The dragon pattern executed
in this way on a blue ground relates this dish to a small family including a mei-p'ing
and a bottle-shaped vase in this same collection (pis. 50 and 53) and a few isolated
pieces elsewhere and this handful of examples may represent almost the only sur-
vivals of the fourteenth-century taste for white decoration set off by a blue back-
ground.'" So far no dragons in the standard blue-on-white technique have turned up
on these large dishes, although a number of vases and some of the smaller, fighter
wares in other cofiections are so decorated.-"' Except for these, the only large early
fifteenth-century dishes with other than floral or landscape decoration to have been
Cf. Pope, Letter from the Near East, HJAS, 13, nos. 3 and 4 (Dec. 1950) : plate 6; and a
similar bottle in the David Collection (Hobson, Catalogue, pi. 120),
-"^ See note 132, p. 65 above.
E.g., Freer, 51.13, Pope, Ming porcelains, p. 19.
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION
97
noticed so far are the four in Istanbul decorated with bulbuls and the great dish in
Japan with parakeets.
The floral repertory and the rare dragon and bird motifs described in connection
with the dishes are for the most part carried out on vessels of other types with only
such changes as may now and then be dictated by the requirements of a particular
shape and the surfaces it presents. In the bowls, for example, the rims are decorated
with the same patterns, and the sides, corresponding to the cavettoes of dishes, take
on the role of major decorative areas. The central patterns are reduced to relatively
small circles framing single sprays of fruit or flowers inside the bottoms. A standard
example of the translation of similar motifs from one form to the other is 29.321
(pi. 47) decorated with thunder pattern at the rim, a broad band of lotus scrolls oc-
cupying most of the body, lotus-petal panels below, and a band of classic scroll around
the foot.'"*
The use of the lotus panels is of special interest because this element which was
widely employed in the fourteenth-century blue-and-white disappeared from the large
dishes of the early fifteenth century, although it remained on vessels of other shapes.
On this bowl it is executed in a heavy fine which frames a single vertical element in
the center; and the frame as a whole is tall and narrow in form. This is but one of
many guises assumed by the motif in this period, and while it remained fairly constant
on the wares of the middle fourteenth century it now began to develop in a variety of
ways that can only be explained by the greatly increased inventiveness of the period.
A look at the illustrations in this section and at the wares in other collections will give
ample evidence of what took place.'*" A most unusual development and one that
seems to have been Umited to the early part of the century, as the bowls are always
called Yung-lo, though no marked pieces have yet been seen, is that on the lien-tzu
bowls where single, sohd, petal-like members rise from the base almost to the rim as
seen on 29.326 (pi. 47). In fact these have not generally been recognized as varieties
of the same element, but there seems no reason to believe they have any different
origin. Of this widely known group the Ardebil Collection boasts one hitherto un-
noticed variant in 29.327 (pi. 46) where each petal is framed by a single narrow line.
Other unusual features of this same bowl are the thunder pattern around the foot and
the compression and elongation of the classic scroll around the rim, while the inside
is painted with fruit sprays instead of the customary flowers on a scrolling vine.
The bowl with inturning rim (29.328, pi. 46) which has been mentioned above
=«3Cf. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): plate 11; and Kokka, 711.
Several bowls of this type are marked with the Hsiian-te nien-hao; e.g., PMA 45.
The most striking comparison is afforded by the renderings seen on the large kuan in the
Metropolitan Museum and the two mei-p'ing in the Nelson Gallery (PMA 47, 48, 49) all of which
are Hsuan-te pieces. This group alone makes it unnecessary to seek any chronological significance
in the varying degrees to which the motif was elaborated in this period.
98
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
as a rare form in the fifteenth century is clearly a product of the period in every detail
of its decoration. The wave border, the main zone of lotus scrolls, and the simple
lotus petal panels that surround the base are all characteristic of the new style as is
the small peach spray inside a double circle in the bottom.
Among the shallow conical bowls (29.330, 332, 333, 334; pis. 47 and 48) there
is considerable variety in the decoration including the three friends (29.330), alter-
nating sprays of flowers and fruits (29.332), a single dragon (29.333), and a peony
scroll pattern (29.334). The latter two call for special comment. The dragon which
is exceptionally elongated to cover the entire outer circumference has white scales and
a pointed snout, and these characteristics together with the fairly long curving claws
and the narrow band of white ventral scales are reminiscent of fourteenth-century
representations of the beast. Comparison with typical Hsiian-te dragons suggests
a relatively early date for the bowl, perhaps close to the year 1400. The peony bowl
(29.334) is unusual in having the outside pattern repeated within in underglaze slip
painting of great deUcacy the whole bowl, moreover, is not white but a very pale
shade of gray. Another group of bowls is made up of those with deep sides and
straight rims, a late fourteenth-century form that continued in use, and these reveal the
customary variety in decoration (pi. 49).
Among the vases, the outstandingly beautiful mei-p'ing (pi. 50) has already
been mentioned with respect to its unusual shape and has been cited as a member of
that small family decorated with white dragons reserved on grounds of blue waves.
It need only be added here that the decoration is superbly executed in keeping with
the extraordinary quality of the vase from the standpoint of potting. The other
mei-p'ing in this group are standard early fifteenth-century shapes which exhibit the
usual variety of decoration (pi. 51 ) as do the broad kuan jars (pi. 52). The shoulder
of 29.495 bears a design like that on the neck of a kuan of remarkable quality dated
a century later in the Chia-ching period although neither the blue nor the drawing
on the Ardebil piece shows any affinity with the style of the latter period. Another
early fifteenth-century kuan with this design is known.""' On 29.479 attention should
be called to the scroll around the base which is unusually thick and bold. Unlike that
on the mei-p'ing 29.415 (pi. 56), it is not simply drawn in outline and filled with pale
wash, but rather seems to have been sketched in and then heavily accented with broad
strokes of dark blue which cover most of the outlines and give a strongly modulated
effect.
E.g., PMA 47-49 and Pope, Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art, no. 51.13, p. 19.
PMA 57, which is marked Hsiian-te, suggests a date for this piece.
'"^ No. 160 in the OCS Catalogue of 1953. A similar piece is known m this country; and the
design is also seen on PMA 117 in the more typical dark Chia-ching blue.
Cf. Honey, The ceramic art of China, plate 86b. That piece is there labeled "Middle of
15th century," but it seems to be in the early style.
THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY: DECORATION
99
Similar scrolls are seen on the shoulders of the bottle-shaped vase 29.448 (pi.
53) and the ewer 29.430 (pi. 54) which in all other respects conform to the early
fifteenth-century standard and call for no further comment. This ewer, as well as
those with the heavy bodies and cyUndrical necks (pis. 54 and 55), illustrates further
the wealth of variety achieved by the decorators of the period in combining the stand-
ard motifs.
The large bottle with white dragon on a ground of blue waves (29.471, pi. 53) is
a beautiful example of this small but well-known family; and that with blue dragon on
a white ground (29.470)"" is unusual in having a background of scroHing lotus
plants, whereas most of the dragons in this period are associated with either clouds or
waves, the watery elements which form their natural habitat. Only in the Cheng-te
period does the combination of dragons and lotus seem to become more customary.
Another large bottle from which the neck has been broken (29.483, pi. 55) illustrates
this type in its flattened form and is decorated with peony, chrysanthemum, and
lotus.'"
A well-known type is represented by the small flask with loop handles (29.458,
pi. 55) of the type known as pien-hu. Several of these in various collections carry the
mark of the Hsiian-te reign; and as no special characteristics appear to distinguish
one from another no doubt this and other unmarked examples may be assigned to
the same period.
Finally, mention must be made of two pieces in the Ardebil Collection which
seem to have no parallels in the whole field of Chinese porcelain as it is known today.
No. 29.485 (pi. 55) is an object which can only be described as a funnel. Although
the shape is unfamiliar and the details of the decoration are unusual, the drawing and
the blue point to an early fifteenth-century date, and indeed the formalized lotus
petals which comprise the main decoration are reminiscent of those on the Uen-tzu
bowls (pis. 46 and 47) in spite of the two white dots and the chevronlike break near
the top of each. The small perforations inside through which any liquid must pass
in flowing from the bowl down into the tube have a strongly Near Eastern flavor; and
the device was widely used as a strainer or screen in Islamic vessels of both pottery
and metal. As it has not been observed in Chinese vessels, one is tempted to think
that this may be an example of that much discussed and never identified rarity, a
Chinese porcelain made to order for the Near Eastern trade. Equally out of the ordi-
nary, and perhaps in the same category, is the other object, 29.455 (pi. 55), which is
simply a sphere of solid porcelain with a circular hole penetrating one side (or the
top? or bottom?) . Among the guesses that have been made as to its use are hatstand,
A similar bottle in the Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden is said to have come from the
Sangir Islands. Cf. Ottema, Chineesche ceramiek, p. 106, fig. 121.
2" No. 29.469 is a complete bottle of this type but was inadvertently not included among the
photographs; see TOCS, 25 (1949-1950), pi. 2c.
100 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
counterweight for a mosque lamp, or part of a water pipe, but none of these can
really be demonstrated, and for the time being we are completely in the dark. The
decoration, admirably adapted to the spherical shape, is also somewhat puzzling.
As may be seen in the illustration, the technique of outline and wash has been used for
the cloud scrolls, the flowers, and some of the leaves. Some of the smaller leaves, on
the other hand, are drawn with simple brush strokes and no outHne. These latter
are especially noticeable in the chrysanthemum scroll where they are closely similar to
the fourteenth-century style, as seen for example in the chrysanthemum panel on the
lower part of 29.319 (pi. 23) and on some of the Kharakhoto fragments (pi. 133,
13). The 6-petaled flowers in the centers of the circles also recall the blackberry-Hly
blossoms in the crapemyrtle borders of some of the fourteenth-century dishes and
bowls. Yet the piece as a whole does not suggest such an early date, and the cloud
scrolls in the interstices between the circles and the painting of the large leaves at the
sides seem to be more in keeping with the style of the early fifteenth century. So for
the time being it is tentatively placed with this group.
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE MID-FIFTEENTH CENTURY:
"INTERREGNUM"
The three decades between the death of the Emperor HsUan-tsung, which termi-
nated the Hsiian-te period in the first moon of 1435, and the accession in the first
moon of 1464 of the Emperor Hsien-tsung who named his reign Ch'eng-hua in the
following year, have always been troublesome to students of Chinese ceramic history.
Hobson, followed by later writers, has dwelt on the troubled political events of those
years; and they need not be recited again. Such scanty knowledge as we have of the
ceramic scene comes to us through the brush of Chu Yen, and the wares marked with
acceptable nien-hao of the three reigns can probably be counted on the fingers of one
hand. For these reasons it has become customary among devotees to refer to this
obscure period as the "Ceramic Interregnum," and one of the favorite pastimes is to
speculate on the nature of "Interregnum" wares and to suggest possible candidates
for this attribution among otherwise unidentified fifteenth-century porcelains.
Some have given serious credence to the secondhand statements of Chu Yen
but the fact that does not seem to have been noticed is that, whether his statements
are accurate or not, what he says is of little consequence. It is certainly a matter of
interest to know that the directorship of the Imperial factories was abolished at a
certain time or that the production of these factories was curtailed at another, but this
tells us nothing about what was done in the absence of these directors or what kinds of
wares were made when the output was Umited. In a word, whether we believe Chu
Yen or not, we still know nothing whatever about the subject that intrigues us most,
the nature of "Interregnum" wares. Until contemporary texts come to light or until
we see acceptably marked porcelains in sufficient numbers to serve as the basis for
some standard of judgment, or preferably both, we are not likely to find out. In this
period of happy ignorance, however, we remain free to theorize, to exercise our wits,
and to indulge our fancies as we may see fit, remembering always that we are doing
just that. It is in this spirit that the following remarks are ventured.
Reverting for a moment to the historical scene, it should be pointed out that
poHtical unrest has not normally been detrimental to the progress of the arts in China.
The Sung Dynasty is the classic example. Harassed from the very beginning by aggres-
sive neighbors to the north, they sufl'ered repeated invasions on a gradually increasing
scale until after a century and a half of precarious tenure they were driven out of
North China altogether; and most of this time they were torn by internal dissension
between two political factions, one advocating all-out war on the invaders, the other
Cf . Bushell, T'ao Shuo, p. 6 1 .
101
102 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
urging the payment of tribute and peace at any price. Nor did the southward flight
of the court and the physical comforts of their beautiful new capital at Hangchou bring
them security. The Chin Tatars continued to threaten, and the rulers of Southern
Sung paid dearly for their uneasy peace by calhng them "uncle" and sending costly
annual gifts until, in the opening years of the thirteenth century, the relentless Mongol
cast his shadow over the northwest in the first steps of a movement that was to engulf
Tatar and Chinese alike in the conquest of continental eastern Asia. But all this time
the painters went on painting and the potters went on potting to make Sung one of the
high points in Chinese artistic history. The mere capture of an emperor and a few
decades of political chaos are hardly enough to explain the present hiatus in our
knowledge of the history of Ming porcelain during the middle third of the fifteenth
century.
Facing the curious absence from our collections of marked porcelains of these
reigns, we must assume that, because of the pohtical situation or for other reasons
unknown to us, the three nien-hao in question, Cheng-t'ung, Ching-t'ai, and T'ien-
shun, were very sparingly used. It is unlikely that any considerable body of wares
should simply have disappeared; and it is equally improbable in view of the impetus
gained by the ceramic industry in the first 35 years of the century that all pottery
making should have come to a stop. Is it not logical to suppose that such wares as
continued to be made, whether under circumstances of interrupted or reduced produc-
tion, should have continued in the then well-established and familiar style of the
Hsiian-te period? More than this, and in spite of the fact that our tradition-bound
Chinese colleagues refuse to admit it, is it not likely that the potters even continued,
from force of habit and lacking instructions to the contrary, to write the Hsiian-te
nien-hao on some of their wares? Both of these possibiUties might tend to explain in
part the survival today of so many "Hsiian-te wares," marked and unmarked. There
is no reason to expect or even to look for a sudden change in style in the succeeding
decade or so.
Gradually, of course, a change did occur, and today we can distinguish certain
differences in both style and execution between those wares we recognize as products
of the first third of the century and those made in the last third; and the stages of that
change must be sought in the "Interregnum." The smoother, glassier glaze, the more
delicately potted bowls with deeper, thinner feet and more finely finished rims, the
perfection of the outline and wash technique in the application of the blue designs,
the finer preparation of the cobalt that resulted in the elimination of black and brown-
ish spots from the blue, all these qualities which seem suddenly to emerge in Ch'eng-
hua must have been in the course of development in the intervening years. Indeed it
may be in vain that we hope to find an "Interregnum style" as such. Like the middle
years of the seventeenth century, these were years of transition, though the change in
style is neither so clearly evident nor so fully documented; and as in the later period
THE MID-FIFTEENTH CENTURY: "INTERREGNUM"
103
we see the spirit of Wan-li giving way to that of K'ang-hsi, we may expect to find the
wares of the "Interregnum" answering to the description "Hsiian-te extended cum
Ch'eng-hua anticipated." From what we have seen of Chinese texts we can expect
very httle help in finding out what the wares looked hke even if we should turn up
more sources on the ceramic activity of the three reigns. Further marked pieces may
come into our hands, but in view of the wide distribution of kilns and our ignorance
of the source of any given piece,'" a handful of assorted wares can never be a corpus
on which to base an opinion. The "Ceramic Interregnum" will continue to provide a
test of connoisseurship, for it is not hkely to give up its secrets soon. Whether this
state of affairs involves a major loss to the history of the ceramic art is another matter.
Although they are always ready to discuss the possibiUty that this or that piece
may be a product of the "Interregnum," none of the recent writers on the subject has
ventured to pubUsh a photograph of any of his favorite nominees.'" Perhaps this
cautious attitude is entirely justified, but it makes the situation increasingly difficult
because with all the interest it arouses it still provides no point of departure for further
studies; and as several pieces in the Ardebil Collection seem to show the appropriate
characteristics they will be mentioned here, with all due diffidence, as possible "Inter-
regnum" wares. The two most likely candidates are a kmn (29.496) and a mei-p'ing
(29.415) illustrated on plate 56. Each is not only the only one of its kind in the
collection, but the only one thus far noticed in Ming blue-and-white, and both are of
the finest quaUty decorated with beautifully painted designs executed in a most unu-
sual manner. Essentially it is the outline and wash technique, but in this instance the
petals and leaves of the great peonies which dominate the decorative scheme are
closely covered with fine wirehke lines drawn over or under the pale wash. The style
seems to have been anticipated on some of the blue-and-white of the fourteenth cen-
tury only to vanish again from the repertory of the early fifteenth. It reappears,
however, on the large stoneware vase in the Topkapu Sarayi which bears an An-
namese date corresponding to 1450 and on some of the related pieces like 29.143
(pi. 57)""; and whether this distinctive style was preserved in the south through the
intervening years we have no way of knowing at this time.
The whole question of Annamese wares requires further study. For 20 years
after its publication the dated Sarayi vase was the only clue to suggest that blue-and-
-^^ While it is assumed, and perhaps rightly, that the finest wares came from Ching-te Chen,
there must have been a wide variety of styles and quahties made in the many factories of that town;
and we still have no means of identifying those less fine porcelains or of distinguishing them from
similar wares made elsewhere.
E.g., Gamer, Oriental blue and white, pp. 24-25, and Jenyns, Ming pottery and porcelain,
pp. 77-79.
2" Cf., e.g., 29.510 and 29.522 on plates 26 and 27.
2^«Cf. TOCS, 11 (1933-1934): plate 4; also ACASA, 5 (1951): 32, plate 6c, d.
104 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
white may have been made in that area, and at least one attempt has been made to
discredit that document altogether."' Of late, however, enough material has come to
light to make this a distinct and recognizable ceramic family; no actual excavations
have yet been reported,""^ but several collections made in southeast Asia have included
wares of the same type and these are generally considered to have originated in An-
nam.'" Many periods and many types are represented among these wares, and much
work remains to be done in estabhshing the chronology. For the moment the Sarayi
vase remains the only datable document; such classification as has been undertaken
has consisted in finding those pieces which seem to be comparable in material, quality,
and style and which may therefore be considered a mid-fifteenth-century group. Fur-
ther progress will involve working backward and forward from that point relying
to a large extent on analogy with the better-known Chinese types, a process which
entails many risks because nothing is known of the relations between the potters of
Kiangsi and those who made these Annamese wares in similar style. For the time
being, however, there is nothing else to do, and this method will at least provide a
means of starting if it be recognized that the result is always subject to later revision
based on new evidence.
This digression on the problem of the Annamese wares not only serves to account
for the assignment of this one Ardebil example to the "Interregnum," but also to con-
tribute to a certain extent to the hke attribution of the kuan and the mei-p'ing (29.496
and 29.415). They are wares of outstanding quaUty in every respect; they display an
unusual degree of emphasis on the outline and wash style of drawing; and in addi-
tion to these two characteristics they have a striking and otherwise unexplained simi-
larity of style to the mid-fifteenth-century Annamese group. It is on these grounds
that they are tentatively suggested as representing at least one type of "Interregnum"
ware.
As has already been pointed out, it is hardly likely that ceramic activity came to
a halt in this period, and even if production of certain kinds of wares was reduced
to some extent, a good many porcelains must still have been made. Some of these no
doubt exist among the pieces now generally assigned to the period covered by the
Reitlinger and Button, Early Ming blue and white.
Dr. Olov Janse informs me that he heard of the existence of Ming kiln sites in the deha east
of Hanoi but was unable to investigate them; and more recently there have been rumors of excava-
tions yielding blue-and-white in that area by French archaeologists. (Cf. Okuda, S., Annamese
ceramics, pp. 13-14.) Their publications are awaited with interest.
The largest is that in the Musee du Cinquantenaire in Brussels, which I was able to visit
briefly in 1954. Some 2,900 pieces illustrate the whole ceramic history of Aimam; and there are
two particularly interesting groups of blue-and-white, mostly in fifteenth-century style, recovered
respectively from Phu-Tinh-Gia in Thanh-hoa and Lam Dien, Ha-dong in Tonkin, although these
were cachettes rather than kiln sites. Cf. Aga-Oglu, Five examples of Annamese pottery; Orsoy
de Fhnes, Gids voor de keramische Verzameling; and Okuda, op. cit.
THE MID-FIFTEENTH CENTURY: "INTERREGNUM"
105
Yung-lo and Hsiian-te reigns, and there may be others among those now considered
Ch'eng-hua. Everything considered, however, the earher group seems to provide the
more logical hunting ground. One rather distinctive family usually included in the
early fifteenth-century class seems to invite further scrutiny to that end. It is repre-
sented in the Ardebil Collection by nine pieces; and with even less assurance than that
which prompted the tentative attribution of the mei-p'ing and the kuan just described,
they are, although already called early fifteenth century in the previous chapter, men-
tioned again as possibly deserving reconsideration. These are the conical bowl 29.332
(pi. 47), the four deep-sided bowls of which 29.338 and 29.340 are illustrated on
plate 49, and the four mei-p'ing represented by 29.413 (pi. 51)."° It is most difficult
to define the quahties in these pieces which give rise to the suspicion that they may
be post-Hsiian-te; again they are of the highest quality in every respect, and the dec-
oration is beautifully drawn and disposed on the various surfaces in a subdued outline
and wash style in which the blue is more smooth and even than that usually associated
with early fifteenth-century wares. The bases of the four deep-sided bowls are roughly
covered with a bluish glaze which leaves certain areas thinly covered or quite bare to
reveal a very fine paste of faintly yellowish tone. On the mei-p'ing the plantain or fern
leaves around the base are executed with a regularity and finesse that anticipate the
almost mechanical appearance they assume on certain pieces which have been as-
signed to Ch'eng-hua."' Beyond these main things that strike the eye, all the pieces are
finely potted, and the mei-p'ing are remarkably light in weight for their size. Ad-
mittedly this is very little to go on, and nothing more than the most tentative sugges-
tion is ventured; but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this family may one
day turn out to be later than Hsuan-te or "Interregnum" wares.
"0 Other possible members of this family are PMA 78, 84, 85, 89.
Cf. TOCS, 26 ( 1950-1951 ) : 40, plate lOe, and Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art,
p. 26; PMA 125, which was there called "16th century," is evidently closely related to the Freer
mei-p'ing, and PMA 124 may also belong to the same group.
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
That only a very few pieces in the Ardebil Collection may be assigned to the last
third of the century is not surprising for the same situation exists in all known collec-
tions of Chinese ceramics. The reason for this is not understood, but the output of
these three decades was evidently smaller than in any other equal period in the fif-
teenth and sixteenth centuries. Indeed a survey of the blue-and-white made in the
Ch'eng-hua and Hung-chih reigns and marked with the nien-hao reveals that only
some 30-odd pieces are known from the former while those from the latter number
less than a dozen. Inasmuch as the attribution of unmarked pieces is materially assisted
by the availability of a body of marked wares which serve as standards, the proper
documentation of these two reigns presents certain problems. This is all the more
regrettable because, to judge from those wares we know, it was a period of partic-
ular interest. The Chinese themselves ranked the wares of Ch'eng-hua second
only to those of Hsiian-te, mostly it seems because tradition held that in the latter
reign the potteries were deprived of the imported cobalt which had produced the rich
dark blues they so greatly admired. From the vantage point of our own time with
some four centuries of perspective to temper our view we may feel this is merely a
question of taste for some connoisseurs today prefer the unparalleled dehcacy of the
Ch'eng-hua wares in spite of the sometimes paler shades of blue with which they are
decorated, though it would be hard to say if the esteem in which they are now held is
not in some degree enhanced by their rarity. Be that as it may, for sheer perfection in
every detail, the best blue-and-white wares of Ch'eng-hua stand in a class by them-
selves. And even the small handful of fine examples in the Ardebil Collection, for all
that they may be called "export wares," amply support this view.
Before turning to the pieces themselves a word about the general style of the
period may be in order. The refinement which was noted as the principal character-
istic of the early fifteenth century, in comparing those wares with their predecessors,
was carried forward to its highest point in the two decades of the Ch'eng-hua reign,
nor was there any serious falUng off as the century drew to a close. Never was the
hand of the Ming potter more controlled or that of the Ming painter more sure. At
their best these are the most sensitively potted wares the dynasty produced, and in all
the 276 years of Ming rule no porcelains were decorated with greater dehcacy and
finesse than these. If the earher wares are admired for the superior strength of their
potting and the vigor of their decoration, these later wares bespeak no less admiration
for their supreme purity and elegance. It was a point in the history of the potter's art
whence there was nowhere to go but down, and the decline in quahty that marks the
107
108 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
wares of the sixteenth century was inevitable. One is reminded of that other turning
point in the history of Chinese art some 2,500 years earlier when bronze casting
reached such a zenith of perfection near the end of the Shang Dynasty that there was
nothing left but gradual deterioration.
Obviously not all the wares were fine, and the considerable range in quality be-
tween the best types and those of humbler origin is well illustrated in the Ardebil
Collection. The bowls and dishes with counterparts among the marked pieces in other
collections are thinly potted and the foot rims tend to be deeper and narrower with
the inside almost vertical and the outside tapering down to a very thin and smoothly
finished edge. The clay itself is rarely dead white but more likely to be of a cream or
ivory tone just off white, a shade that is often most noticeable on the bases and es-
pecially near the foot rims. The decoration is executed with great delicacy in a blue
that tends to be paler and less dense than that of the earher period. Even on those
occasions where it is thick and dark in tone, it is less heavy and fails to produce the
effect of speckhng or the occasional dark spots of oxidation which mark the blues of
the first half of the century. It seems as if the cobalt were more finely ground and more
evenly distributed through the solution, so that no lumps or particles remained to be
picked up and left on the surface of the porcelain by the decorator's brush. And the
style itself tends to support this view, for now instead of painting in big bold strokes
with a heavily charged brush as did his predecessors, the decorator more often than
not outhned his subject with fine fines and filled in the patterns with graded washes,
a technique ill suited to a less-refined pigment. Not that outUne and wash were un-
known in the first half of the century or that bold drawing with heavy strokes was
completely abandoned in the second, but each tends to be more characteristic of one
period.
In addition to these fine wares, the Ardebil Collection includes certain pieces not
so readily recognizable but which, upon close examination seem to be contemporary
though not of the same quality (pis. 67-74) . The potting is less fine, the glaze is often
poorer, and the decoration is hasty and sometimes crowded and mechanically com-
posed. Some have more claim than others to inclusion in this group, and in the de-
scriptions of the individual pieces below the merits of each are discussed in detail.
Among the pieces of fine quafity, illustrations are shown of two small dishes,
one of which is decorated inside and out with lions at play with brocaded balls
(29.277, pi. 58) and one with a landscape scene showing a prunus tree in bloom be-
side a fantastic rock and flanked by a fungus plant and a bamboo with a crescent
moon above (29.149, pi. 59). The motif of the sporting lions is well known and
apparently not limited to any particular period within the Ming Dynasty. Here, al-
though freely and strongly painted, it is nonetheless carried out in the outline and
wash technique. The dish itself meets all the standards of potting, glaze, and finish
one has come to expect of the finest Ch'eng-hua wares. No less perfect is the landscape
THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
109
dish, and the outline drawing filled with washes of delicate lavender blue is carried out
with a freedom not often found in fifteenth-century work early or late."' Outside the
dish are four flowering branches, two of prunus, and two unidentified.
The bowls provide good examples of the range of quality in this group and at
the same time illustrate the broad scope of the decorative repertory. Considering the
limited quantity of late fifteenth-century wares at our disposal, it is impossible to at-
tempt a definition of that repertory; but if this small selection is any indication of the
true state of affairs, the variety must have been considerable. The bowls introduce a
question of terminology that requires further consideration than it has so far received.
Apparently originating with Brankston, the term "Palace Bowls" has gained wide cur-
rency to describe a number of bowls of the finest quaUty both in potting and decora-
tion. All those so described are close to 6 inches in diameter, and all are marked
with the Ch'eng-hua nien-hao in six characters."' It is not clear where Brankston got
the term, and he did not define the type he described by it; these observations on size
and on the use of the 6-character mark derive simply from examination of the bowls
to which the term has been applied. So far as has been noticed no such term appears
to have been used in any Ming text so it seems likely that, as in the case of the so-
called "Imperial" wares discussed in an earlier chapter, this is not an authentic desig-
nation contemporary with the porcelains it describes but simply a modern term coined
by the Peking dealers of Brankston's time who considered these bowls fine enough
to have been used in the Palace. As a descriptive term it serves a useful purpose, for
every connoisseur immediately knows what is meant by "Palace Bowl"; but it would
be a mistake to assume that it carries any precise implications relating to the use of
porcelain in the Palace in Ming times.
It may be argued that the question is not pertinent because none of the Ardebil
bowls is marked. On the other hand, even though this is the case and even though
all these are larger than the typical "Palace Bowl," several of them are equally fine in
quality; and 29.344 (pi. 64) has a lotus scroll design closely resembling that on
Mr. Norton's bowl, which was no. 108 in the OCS exhibition of 1953-1954. Equally
fine is 29.341 (pi. 60), which is decorated with scholars and attendants in a landscape
that includes pines, a banana growing behind a rock, and a palace in the clouds. In-
side is a circular medallion framing a formal composition of the three friends around
a highly styHzed garden rock. Two similar bowls are known, one in the Freer Gallery
of Art (52.4) and one in the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art (B63 1 ) . The
latter two are identical in size and design, though the blue on the David bowl is
stronger and darker than that on the Freer. Both are thirteen-sixteenths of an inch
A tall bottle-shaped vase in the Topkapu Sarayi is similarly decorated. Cf. TOCS, 26
(1950-1951): 37-40, plate 9.
"3 Cf. Brankston, Early Ming wares, p. 46, plate 26; and nos. 98-108 in the OCS Catalogue of
1953-1954.
110 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
larger than the Ardebil bowl, and as may be seen by comparing the photographs,"*
the figures on the latter are slightly stouter, wear a different type of headgear, and are
more crowded together in the composition. So slight are these differences and so
minor the variations in detail that any choice between them would be a matter only of
personal taste; in quality there is nothing to distinguish one from another. This scene
has its roots in the past, and though no identical compositions come to mind, the
motif of figures in a landscape with the corner of a palace seen behind clouds is known
on more than one Hsiian-te bowl."' But in physical quaHty as well as by analogy with
the so-called "Palace Bowls" these three pieces are evidently Ch'eng-hua.
In the same class is another bowl with what has generally come to be considered
a typical Ch'eng-hua pattern. No. 29.343 (pi. 62) has four dragons on the outside
above a trefoil band; inside is the design of crossed vajras, which suggests Buddhist
associations. It is the curious style of the dragons, however, that calls for special com-
ment. Only the two front legs are drawn, and the rest of the body trails off in a suc-
cession of ornate scrolls. At the shoulders are small wings; the proboscidiform snout
extends upward, and from the tip of the protruding tongue springs the stem of a lotus
with leaves and a blossom. This beast is found on a small number of porcelains all
but one of which are unmarked and drawn, like this one, in the outline and wash
technique typical of the latter half of the fifteenth century."" None of the others
Pope, Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art, p. 27. The David bowl has not been
published.
Op. cit., p. 20. The Hsiian-te versions usually show ladies on a terrace bounded by a balus-
trade; but the spirit is much the same, and no doubt all represent Taoist paradises in which ladies
and gentlemen alike are engaged in the comfortable pursuits associated with immortality. Another
variant, known only on one large unmarked bowl probably of the Ch'eng-hua period, shows, among
other scenes, a group of gentlemen admiring a painting (OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 114, pi. 10).
Cf. Jenyns, op. cit., plates 64A, 68B. The one marked example is a covered vase of kuan
shape in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge which carries the 6-character nien-hao of the
Hsiian-te period (cf. Sotheby and Co. auction catalogue of 26 May 1937, no. 37). There the
dragons are drawn without outline in the heavy dark-blue strokes characteristic of the time. While
we know too little to state dogmatically that any given design was not used before or after a certain
date, we may fairly say that we know the period of its widest popularity; and it is entirely possible
that this curious dragon may have been used before Ch'eng-hua. The Fitzwilliam vase may be an
example of this, but on the other hand it is not on all grounds entirely free from suspicion. The cover
is ahnost certainly late; and when compared with the dragons on this bowl, those on the vase are far
inferior. Stiffly drawn in profile with paws for claws and no understanding of the relationship be-
tween the two legs, they have disproportionately large lotus blossoms emerging from their throats
behind the tongues. The scrolling bodies are greatly over-extended and somewhat awkwardly drawn.
Furthermore, close examination of the base reveals a very curious thing. It is not covered by a
single smooth layer of glaze, but in the center is a roughly circular area slightly larger than the
double ring enclosing the mark where the glaze is noticeably thicker, more greenish blue and more
uneven than it is elsewhere. Is it possible that the piece was made at some undetermined later date,
THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
111
adorns a piece of such high quality as this bowl; the potting, the glaze, and the foot
rim are all extremely fine, and these together with the beautifully executed painting
mark this as the best piece to have come to light bearing this typical late fifteenth-
century design. The significance of the Buddhist symbol inside the bowl is not clear
as nothing is yet known of the use of porcelains in the service of that rehgion."' The
whole problem is further compUcated by another bowl (29.348, pi. 66) decorated
outside with five symbols and inside with two rows of Tibetan script surrounding a
central medalHon consisting of a flaming wheel. Mrs. Antoinette K. Gordon, of the
American Museum of Natural History, who has been kind enough to examine the
photograph, reports that the upper row of script consists of the syllables va-la-gla-ma-
ja-na repeated over and over, and that Vala is an epithet of Indra. Indra was one of
the deities of Hinduism, lord of the atmosphere and the sky, the bringer of rain; one of
his symbols is the vajra and another is the flaming wheel. In later times he figured
extensively in Buddhist lore as well. The inner line of script is unfortunately not de-
cipherable in the photograph but seems to be the same. What these Hindu symbols are
doing on this late fifteenth-century Chinese bowl is a question requiring further study,
but though the piece is somewhat thicker and heavier than usual, there can be little
doubt that it dates from Ch'eng-hua or Hung-chih times.
Most unusual and most striking of all is 29.345 (pi. 63) decorated both inside
and out with birds perched on flowering crabapples. It is a piece of the finest quaUty
in every respect except for the mark which consists of two interlocking lozenges care-
lessly drawn in underglaze blue on the base. The decoration reminds us at once of that
on the great dishes in Istanbul which show two bulbuls on a branch of flowering crab-
apple and which suggest a date somewhere toward the end of the first half of the
fifteenth century."* The present bowl, however, is clearly Ch'eng-hua in potting and
glaze and in the very fine handhng of the deep foot which tapers down to a narrow rim.
The drawing also is in keeping with the period, and this is particularly evident in the
decorated with these dragons of late fifteenth-century type, though not in the proper style, and left
unmarked? Then, still later, may the glaze not have been ground off a circular area in the center of
the base, the Hsuan-te mark written on and covered with new glaze, and the whole piece refired?
Actual experiment might determine whether such a procedure was possible, and the above theory is
oftered simply as a tentative explanation of a most puzzling piece. The most elaborately conceived
dragons of this type to have been noticed so far are those on a large dish in the Princessehof Museum
in Leeuwarden, which may be dated somewhere near the year 1500. (ACASA, 5 (1951): 32-36,
pi. 7, e and f . ) They are drawn in outline and filled in with wash.
2" Brankston felt that "most of the Hsiian-te wares were intended for ritual use" and referred
to stem cups "placed on altars and filled with clear water" and to globular cups "also filled with water
and carried probably during prayers." In Ch'eng-hua times he tells us that "ritual vessels are in the
minority." (Op. cit., pp. 25, 36.) Unfortunately, he gives no authority for any of these interesting
statements.
"«Cf. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): plate 11.
112 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
trunks of the trees which are rendered in fine outline with delicate washes as compared
with the bolder more sketchy drawing of the branch on the Istanbul dishes. The
meaning of the mark is not clear, but the same device written in pale blue in the same
careless style, though it lacks the misdirected extra stroke, appears on the base of a
bowl fragment acquired by the writer in Peking (pi. 137, D) . Enough of the fragment
remains to show a starhke flower in a circle inside and part of a row of Sanskrit char-
acters above an overlapping petal band on the outside. As has been shown elsewhere
the latter design has demonstrable associations with the Ch'eng-hua period,''" and
nothing about the fragment contradicts that view. This in turn tends to support a
Ch'eng-hua attribution for this bowl decorated with birds.
Aquatic scenes are not so well known on wares of this period, but several in-
cluded in the present group may be assigned, if not to the Ch'eng-hua reign, at least
to some time in the last third of the century.''" No. 29.378 (pi. 64) is in the shape of
the so-called "Palace bowls" though, hke the others just described, it is over 2 inches
larger than the size which seems to have been accepted as standard. The potting and
the treatment of the foot conform, and the decoration shows fish swimming among
knotweed and lotus plants. In the case of 29.375 (pi. 65) the same quality is evident,
but the shape is slightly different in that the rim is not everted. Here the scene is of
ducks swimming among lotus plants while the inside decoration of a fungus scroll at
the rim and a peach spray in the center contrasts curiously with the aquatic spirit of
the outer surface. An altogether new design appears on 29.349 (pi. 65) which is plain
inside and covered outside with a sohd sea of incised waves against which four fishes
are painted in underglaze blue.
A large bowl decorated with camelha scrolls (29.342, pi. 61) raises problems
to which the answers are not readily available. Although the foot is heavier and has
a broader rim than those on the bowls just described, the fine potting of the whole
piece and the manner in which the design is composed and executed make an attribu-
"'Cf. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951), pp. 38-40.
A small jar decorated with aquatic plants is reproduced in color on the cover of the Japanese
periodical Chawan, vol. 20, no. 5 (August 1950). It is described as having a Ch'eng-hua mark on
the base, and judged from the illustration the quality is excellent. Kushi, op. cit., plate 45, published
a basin decorated in the same style with ducks in a freely drawn aquatic landscape. Although he
calls it Hsiian-te (p. 50; cf. also Bijutsu Kenkyu, no. 143, vol. 6 (1947), pi. 6), the piece is not
marked with a nien-hao. Mr. J. Mayuyama has kindly sent me a photograph showing the base
of the vessel which is marked with a double circle in underglaze blue and no characters. Although
this mark is often seen on K'ang-hsi wares, it must be very rare in Ming times. The shape, too, is
uncommon in Ming porcelain where most pieces of the general type are either shallower dishes or
deeper bowls so far as is now known. No. 29.353 (pi. 70) in the Ardebil Collection is the only
documented exception to have been noticed. In spite of the shape and the curious mark, however,
this basin published by Kushi shows every sign of belonging to the late fifteenth century insofar as it
is possible to judge from the design as seen in a photograph.
THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
113
tion to this period seem quite justified. Particular interest attaches to it not because of
any of its basic qualities but because of the curious spot of black enamel on the base.
Its presence there is unexplained and, so far as is known, without precedent. The size
and position of the enamel suggest at once that it was placed there to cover up a mark.
Hoping to find at least a trace of an underglaze blue line, and with the permission of
Dr. Bahrami, the writer attempted to remove a bit of the enamel with the blade of a
pocket knife. Not only was the effort unsuccessful, but it failed to leave so much as a
scratch on the hard black surface. So the question remains unanswered, and we are left
to speculate. If the patch does not cover a mark, it is hard to imagine why it was put
there at all. If it does cover a mark, why was this done? Perhaps to hide a faulty writ-
ing, or perhaps to obUterate an imperial nien-hao before the piece was sent abroad?
These and other answers may be acceptable. Even more intriguing, however, is the
problem of where it was covered and when. The question of location is not too difficult;
the potters of Persia do not seem to have used a heavy black enamel of this kind; it
could hardly have been done en route, and it must therefore have been done in China,
a conclusion already adumbrated by the range of possible answers to the first question.
Finally, when? The presence of the engraved mark of Shah 'Abbas reminds us that it
must have been done before 1611 when the bowl was placed in the Shrine, or, in
Chinese terms, before the thirty-ninth year of the Wan-U reign. Colored enamels had
been in use as far back as the fifteenth century, and by the time of Chia-ching and
Wan-li they were commonplace; but they were mostly green and yellow, less often au-
bergine and turquoise, but never black. The development of a thick black enamel was,
we have come to believe, one of the technical achievements of the K'ang-hsi potters,
and their results were so striking that they came to dominate a whole group of porce-
lains, the so-called famille noire. Even this is not a real black enamel; it is a thick
transparent green laid over a black wash that gives the desired effect. A real black
enamel of such thickness as to be sensible to the touch does not appear to have been
used by Chinese potters at all, although ample use was made of thick black high-fired
felspathic glaze by the potters of Fukien and of Honan in Sung times. Where the black
spot on this bowl fits into the scheme of things is a question that cannot now be
answered.
Two bowls of shallower proportions bring us to a group of wares somewhat less
fine in quality but which seem to have some claims to inclusion in this period. The
shape is not Hke anything noted so far, the potting is somewhat heavy, and the glaze is
imperfect in places. No. 29.347 (pi. 67) has fish and water plants outside, and inside
is a fish leaping above waves toward the sun with flame scrolls on either side. The
drawing in outUne and deUcate blue washes is excellent. On 29.399 (pi. 68) the out-
side is decorated with children playing in a garden, while the inside again displays an
aquatic motif. The design here, though somewhat less skillfully drawn, is executed in
the same way. At first sight the writer was incHned to assign these two bowls to the
114 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
sixteenth century, and that possibility is still not altogether excluded; but further study
and the examination of additional material suggest that they may well be earlier. They
do not seem at home with any of the well-known Cheng-te or Chia-ching wares, and if
they are sixteenth century they must be very early, and so they are here tentatively
assigned to a period close to the year 1500 or the Hung-chih period.
The same holds true for an unusual bottle-shaped vase decorated with floral
scrolls painted in fine outhne and filled in with wash, 29.451 (pi. 74). The floral
scrolls are topped by a band of clumsily drawn and badly misunderstood classic scroll,
and the neck is ornamented with a network of beaded strings. The deterioration of the
classic scroll toward the end of the fifteenth century is a recognized phenomenon in
porcelain decoration that can be seen on any Hung-chih dish that carries the motif, and
the pattern was even more badly distorted in the sixteenth. The beaded string pattern,
on the other hand, seems to have come into being in the Ch'eng-hua reign or there-
about ^" and is not infrequently found on some of the coarser wares which are tenta-
tively assigned to the period. It is known to have continued in use, though always
sparingly, until at least the middle of the sixteenth century, when it is found on some
of those wares with Portugese inscriptions which seem to bear Western dates in the
1550's.^'^ Below the lip is a row of pointed leaves. In view of these factors in the
decoration, it seems quite possible that the vase may well have been made in the closing
years of the fifteenth century or at least in the Hung-chih reign. Even more interesting
than the decoration is the fact that, if this dating proves to be right, this is the earliest
blue-and-white piece in the Ardebil Collection to bear a date mark of any kind for in a
double circle on the base are the four characters Ta-ming-nien-tsao. This, of course,
is not a proper nien-hao, as it fails to provide the name of a reign but merely designates
the dynasty which in the case of the Ardebil Collection is superfluous. This mark
written with tsao is well known on coarse pieces most of which have been assigned to
the sixteenth century. Jenyns, however, states that tsao was used "on Imperial pieces
of the Hsiian Te period." Be this as it may, the mark on this vase (and on the
broken base of a similar one in the same collection, so there was once a pair of them)
does nothing to alter the fact that it may be a Hung-chih piece.
Related to this vase and also serving as a transition between it and the coarser
wares to follow is 29.442 (pi. 69), a ewer with squat body and tall thick neck. Al-
though by no means fine it is well made and the glaze is good. The closely crowded
decoration is typical of a style that seems to have come into being in the second half
of the fifteenth century and which is in fact related to the style of the Ch'eng-hua
2" Cf. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951), p. 37, plate 9.
See p. 57 and plate 6, L.
Ming pottery and porcelain, p. 68. In a letter of 14 April 1954 he writes that his source
for this statement is a letter from Wu Lai-hsi to Edgar E. Bluett which the latter had shown him.
He does not claim to have seen such a piece so marked, nor have I.
THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
115
pieces we have just examined, differing principally in that it is more coarsely done.
As may be seen on the body of this ewer, the flowers and some of the leaves are drawn
in outline and filled in with wash, other leaves are done in line only; but all the lines
are thicker and heavier than those on the fine Ch'eng-hua pieces. In addition to this,
the surface is more densely covered and the leaves are smaller. One or more of these
traits may be observed on a whole group of porcelains including those remaining to
be discussed in this section. A number of these wares have been assigned indiscrimi-
nately to the sixteenth century, but this may be to a large extent because they are rather
coarse and sometimes even unattractive and for this reason have not been so carefully
studied. Such documentation as we have tends to suggest that the style began to
develop in the latter half of the fifteenth century, reached its period of most general use
in Hung-chih, and continued on into Cheng-te and, as new evidence now shows, even
survived in the early years of Chia-ching. The key piece in this style is the large vase
in the David Foundation dated in the ninth year of Hung-chih (A.D. 1496).''* One
or two other characteristics shared by the members of this group may be mentioned.
The glaze is usually glossy; and in addition to the overcrowding of the rather shriveled-
looking leaves the cloud collar design is commonly used, though now in a somewhat
less graceful shape than the one it enjoyed in the fourteenth century, as a frame for a
very dense design of scrolls, flowers, and sometimes birds. This may be seen on the
neck of the David vase and again on the shoulder of the ewer under discussion. Birds
among cloud scrolls in similar frames are found on the shoulder of a hitherto unpub-
lished vase of kuan shape in the Victoria and Albert Museum (pi. 136, C); and on
another piece in the same museum published by Jenyns, the cloud collar points frame
a very coarsely drawn pattern of abstract scrolls.''' In each of these cases as on
our ewer and on the bulbous top of the famous bottle in Istanbul,"'" the spaces between
the cloud collar points are filled with strands of beaded strings or jeweled pendants of
one sort or another. Before leaving the ewer, attention should also be called to the
band of stiff leaves below the lip, an old design that takes on a new character with the
outline and wash technique. It is closely related to that on another ewer which was
no. 26 in the Philadelphia exhibition where it was dated "Late 14th-Early 15th cen-
tury" but which upon closer examination seems to belong in the late fifteenth-century
group. A more carefully drawn and slightly modified version of the same leaf pattern
is used in a pendent position on a mei-p'ing in the Freer Gallery of Art and a kuan in
the Philadelphia exhibition both of which probably date from the Ch'eng-hua period.'''
Probably in the same group is 29.437 (pi. 70), another ewer with similar design on a
shghtly different body shape. Instead of the bulbous body contracted above the foot,
Hobson, Catalogue, 1934, plate 131.
235 f^iyig pottery and porcelain, plate 69B.
2=«TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): plate 9.
Pope, Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art, p. 26, no. 53.3.
116 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
this one tapers evenly from shoulder to base; and the form is hke that of two others in
Istanbul/^*
Even coarser though embodying all these characteristics are four flasks, of which
29.459 is illustrated on plate 69. The shape is a modification of that found in the
double-gourd flasks of the early part of the century (pi. 55) . Not only are the propor-
tions somewhat different, but the form of the upper bulb has been changed to provide
a sharp angle at the base where it is joined by the handles. The body itself has a deep
cuplike depression in the center of each flat surface, and at the same level two hemi-
spherical lugs protrude from the sides. The hollow base has the shape of a lobed oval
which is glazed only in the small recessed central area. Although the indications are
very slight,the body was evidently made by a vertical joining of two molded sections.
The decoration speaks for itself. Below a border of thunder pattern near the top is a
row of overlapping petal band found on a number of pieces of approximately Ch'eng-
hua date."'^ On the lower neck are the pointed leaves, and the outer rim of the body
shows phoenixes among lotus scrolls of the type familiar on the coarse wares of the
period. Five cloud collar points each closely packed with scroll patterns and what in
this case looks hke fungus surround the central depression which is ornamented with a
conch shell with the animal's head emerging at the base against a ground of concen-
tric waves. On the other flasks of this group (29.460, 461, and 462) there are varia-
tions in the decoration; floral scrolls without the phoenixes surround the outside, and
dragons with foliate tails replace the cloud collar design. The reappearance of this
latter motif on this coarse flask tends to support the behef that it may be Ch'eng-hua.
A vase of similar quaUty and bearing these same curious beasts has been published by
Jenyns who agrees with a probable attribution to that reign.^" Two unpublished flasks
of this same ware and with related designs are known: one in a private collection in
London, and the other no. 1335-1876 in the Victoria and Albert Museum (pi.
136, D). AU are coarse wares and may be provincial in origin, for it can only be as-
sumed that they were not made in the same center that produced the extraordinarily
fine wares of the period; but the quality of the glaze, the elements of the decoration, and
the style in which they are executed all combine to link them rather closely to the wares
of Ch'eng-hua so they may well be assigned to the last quarter of the fifteenth century.
Another member of this same family introduces a whole new set of factors by
virtue of its curious shape. No. 29.472 (pi. 69) has a squat body, a short stem with
flaring top which is partly covered leaving only a small hole in the center, and on one
238 TOCS, 26 (1950-1951) : 49 and plate 15, b and c. Those ewers are there dated early six-
teenth century, but are not for that reason excluded from this group.
TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): 37-40. Published pieces bearing this pattern are illustrated on
plates 9, lOd, and lOe of that article and also in Hobson et al., Chinese ceramics in private collec-
tions, fig. 38, and PMA 125.
Ming pottery and porcelain, plate 68B.
THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
117
side an extended mammiform spout. In the Near East where most of these are found
they are called "pipes"; and Jenyns has called his example a "Narghili Bottle," ^"
both terms suggesting that they were used for smoking tobacco in the Near Eastern
fashion of cooUng the smoke by causing it to pass through water. The present vessel,
however, can hardly be later than 1500, and Jenyns calls his Ch'eng-hua, which it
may well be; but in view of the fact that tobacco was not known in Asia until sometime
in the latter part of the sixteenth century, some other explanation must be sought.
Happily there is plenty of evidence for the antiquity of the form which is in reality a
specialized drinking vessel. Over 30 years ago, I. H. N. Evans published a short study
of the type on the basis of examples found in Southeast Asia,'" and pointed out that
while it was already ancient in Java and Malaya, it probably had an even earlier origin
in India. His illustrations include an earthenware piece with fluted body, a dragon in
rehef around the shoulder and covered with a green lead glaze, which could possibly be
T'ang. Through the courtesy of Dr. Leonard Cox of Melbourne a similar piece is
illustrated here on plate 137. Evans goes on to say that though made in China such
pieces were apparently made only for export to peoples who used them. In a later
paper, Mr. Han Wai-toon treats the same subject,-" and, relating the story of the
Chinese pilgrim Fa Hsien who threw his drinking vessel overboard during a storm en
route from Singhala to Javadvipa,^" refers to it as a kendi, which is the Malay term,
and derives it from the Indian kundika. It is clear from Fa-hsien, he says, that the
kundi {kendi) was imported from ancient India to the Archipelago; and he tells us
that the form was imitated by the Chinese only beginning in Ming times. Whether the
green one mentioned above was made in China or made locally in the T'ang style is
hard to say. The use of the term kendi > kundi > kundika raises further problems, for
Coomaraswamy and Kershaw have described as kundika a drinking vessel of quite an-
other type.'" The latter was filled through a funnel-shaped spout on the side and the
contents poured into the mouth from the narrow spout on top whereas the present
vessel is obviously designed to be used in the opposite way. Coomaraswamy does not
seem to have been aware of this latter type at all, and the question of terminology re-
mains unsolved for the moment.'*"*
Ming pottery and porcelain, plate 68A. See also a piece with Hsiian-te mark which is de-
scribed in the same terms in Hobson and Hetherington, The art of the Chinese potter, plate 109, and
is probably sixteenth century.
On the persistence of an old type of water-vessel, JMBRAS, I, no. 87 (April 1923) : 248-
250.
"3 A research on Kendi, JSSS, 7, pt. 1 (no. 13), 1951.
Cf. Beal, S., Buddhist records of the western world, vol. 1, p. Ixxx.
Chinese Buddhist water vessel and its Indian prototype, AA, 3, no. 2-3 (1928-1929):
122-141.
2*^a Gorgelet is another name for the type. See T. Volker, Porcelain and the Dutch East India
Company, p. 19, note 5. Unfortunately this valuable book was not available to me until the present
volume was in proof.
118 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Be that as it may, the form itself seems to be known more widely outside of China
than in. E. W. van Orsoy de Flines illustrates several of various dates in the Jakarta
Museum and an example in Sawankalok ware illustrated by Okuda Seiichi must
be no later than the fifteenth century. There are four late sixteenth-century pieces in
the Ardebil Collection (pi. 97) and two in the Topkapu Sarayi in Istanbul. Whether
or not they were subsequently converted to the use of tobacco by their Near Eastern
owners, it seems certain that their original purpose was for drinking water. Returning
to this early example in the Ardebil Collection, it is clear that the decoration is very
close to that on the pieces just described. The leaves at the neck, the cloud collar
points on the shoulder, and the tight-leaved lotus scroll on the body are all hastily and
somewhat crudely done under a very glossy glaze, the coarse style of the late fifteenth
century.
Our discussion of these wares has included inevitably a certain number of doubt-
ful pieces, pieces which as our knowledge increases may turn out to be products of the
sixteenth century, for here as always the accident of a particular number in the
sequence of the Christian calendar did not coincide with an abrupt change of style. In
all the pieces thus far shown, however, there seems to be enough affinity with the
recognized Ch'eng-hua and Hung-chih wares to suggest that there is good reason to
place them here for the time being. The same is true of one of the last six pieces to be
described in this chapter; the others are more doubtful. No. 29.137 (pi. 71) is deco-
rated in the cavetto with phoenixes among lotus scrolls executed in the same manner as
the similar motif on the flask (29.459, pi. 69), while the center of the dish is occupied
by one of the most remarkable scenes ever noticed on a Ming porcelain. In a land-
scape setting under an arching pine branch two spotted deer are gambohng in midair;
each has a ring around its neck with two dangling links. That on the left has a single
grotesque horn and carries a flower spray in its mouth, while that on the right, with
two pronged horns, has a fungus in its mouth. Above it are two butterflies. The
whole scene is drawn with the utmost skill and pervaded with a sense of humor, light-
heartedness, and charm worthy of such an artist as Walt Disney. SymboUc connota-
tions are imphcit in many of the decorative schemes on porcelain, but they are
unusually concentrated in this case. The deer, lu E, is a rebus for lu ^ meaning
prosperity; the pine and the fungus are symbols of longevity, and the butterfly, tieh
i^, is a rebus for tieh $ meaning 70 years of age; and so the whole composition
expresses the wish for wealth and long years.
Apparently assignable to the same group is a vessel of a shape not hitherto noticed
Gids voor de keramische Verzameling, plates 44, 45, 57, 80, 93. The one on plate 44 is
late fifteenth century, and that on plate 93 is Annamese, probably mid-fifteenth century. Another
late fifteenth-century kendi is m the Topkapu Sarayi.
Sokoroku zukan, p. 27, plate 49.
THE LATE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
119
in Ming porcelain, 29.353 (pi. 70).'"* It may best be described as a basin with flat-
tened rim and almost straight sides; a slightly raised ring interrupts the side profile
which turns in at the bottom at an angle to meet the fairly high and somewhat undercut
foot. The base is roughly glazed and has no mark. Inside the center is a decoration of
two elongated winged dragons without feet flying among clouds and flames; the sides
are covered with a tightly drawn floral scroll, and a debased classical scroll hes on the
rim. On the outside a petal band is separated by the raised ring from another closely
drawn floral scroll, and separate cloud scrolls decorate the underside of the rim.
Everything about this decorative scheme points to a late fifteenth- or early sixteenth-
century date; but the shape of the basin is most unusual. Thus far it has been seen only
in K'ang-hsi times, and the examples dated in that reign, some of them bearing cyclical
characters to an exact year, are decorated in the style of the period which is quite un-
like this. A large dish closely decorated in rich deep blue (29.136, pi. 72) has some-
thing of the same style in the cavetto, but the center panel of peacocks, rock, and
peonies is very boldly painted in heavy strokes with little use of outline; and the same
bold style appears on 29.139 (pi. 72) both inside and out.
Two more dishes decorated in the same bold style in strong deep blue call for
special mention. One is 29.142 (pi. 73), which has a degenerate classic scroll around
the rim and four large and four small clumps of plants with a horizon line indicated all
around. In the center is a fabulous beast {ch'i-linl) looking up over its shoulder from
a recumbent position; above is a crescent moon, to the right is a large group of plan-
tain leaves, and scattered elsewhere are flame scrolls and crudely drawn auspicious ob-
jects. The dish has a brown rim, and the base is deeply recessed inside an unusually
broad and rounded rim. The design of the recumbent animal is evidently old. It
occurs on a ting yao dish in the British Museum which has already been cited for
other reasons,'" and in that case the beast has no mane but rather a single horn.
Constellations are seen near the crescent moon in the sky, and below is a raging
sea. In spite of this coincidence there can be no question of dating this blue-and-
white dish by reference to its ting prototype. The composition occurs in equally
sketchy style on a small saucer dish given to the writer by Langdon Warner who
acquired several of them in Annam (pi. 137, C). This latter piece also has the brown
rim, but the body as seen at the foot rim is typical grayish-buff Annamese stoneware
glazed under the base, while the Ardebil dish is unglazed underneath revealing a
fine white porcelain. Prof. James MarshaU Plumer reports having seen this design on
porcelains in Fukien, and in the absence of indications to the contrary this may tend
2" Its nearest relative in terms of shape is the type usually marked Hsiian-te inside the bottom
(e.g., TOCS, 1928-1930, pi. 10; and Hobson, David catalogue, pi. 137); some examples have
covers. The base and lower sides are constructed much Hke those of our basin; but the sides of the
earlier pieces are more curved, the rims are not flat, and the vessels are about half the size.
-'^^ Hobson et al., Chinese ceramics in private collections, fig. 86. See p. 61 above.
120 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
to suggest a southern origin for this piece."" A dish in the Isfahan group (pi. 74) is
decorated with the same bold, free painting in rich blue. Lacking only the border
scroU, the cavetto carries a design similar to the one just described. In the center two
ducks fly among lotuses, and the fantastic tail feathers and tips of the wing plumage
are drawn in fine calligraphic strokes of unusual power. The base differs considerably
from that of the preceding dish in that it has a thin coating of pitted glaze within the
rather deep foot which tapers on the outside and is almost vertical on the inside.
These last two dishes are perhaps the most striking members of this little family
painted with great assurance in broad strokes of solid color and showing little interest
in refinement of detail. The group as a whole has thus far eluded precise attribution
and has usually been assigned simply to the fifteenth century.^" Lacking more accurate
information, one hesitates to suggest placing them within a narrower range; but the
possibility must not be excluded that they may belong in the last few decades before
the year 1500. There seems to be no place for them among the well-known sixteenth-
century types.
Related designs appear on some of the coarse blue-and-white excavated in the PhiUppines.
Cf. Janse, HJAS, 8 (1944-1945): plates 5 and 7.
Published pieces include a kuan vase and a tripod shown on plate 13 of Jenyn's Ming pottery
and porcelain; a A:Me/-shaped vessel which was no. 109 in the Detroit exhibition entitled The arts of
the Ming Dynasty. Another is the mei-p'ing which was no. 123 in the OCS exhibition of 1953-1954,
but not illustrated in the catalogue.
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
Once again the arbitrary point of reference to which we turn from force of habit,
the immovable and invisible marker that separates one Christian century from the
next, did not exist in the consciousness of the Chinese for whom the year we call 1500
was merely the thirteenth in the reign of the Ming Emperor Hsiao-tsung; and we have
no means of pointing out any of the porcelains made at that moment or for another six
years until a new emperor came to the throne and named his reign Cheng-te. Our
discussion of the blue-and-white in the Ardebil Collection draws to a close with the
century then beginning. Cheng-te, Chia-ching, and Wan-li are the reigns to be con-
sidered, for no wares from the short Lung-ch'ing period have been identified and when
Shah 'Abbas made his vaqf the Wan-li reign still had almost a decade to run. So what
we loosely call the sixteenth century for purposes of general orientation in world his-
tory includes the years of those reigns, for at this time our knowledge is not such as
to permit the drawing of distinctions between the porcelains of 1600 and those of
1611.
Because the collection includes a number of pieces dated in these three reigns,
the form of this chapter need not follow the pattern used in those preceding where the
group was arbitrarily divided according to types and discussed as a whole with respect
to shape and decoration. Here the dated examples from the three reigns serve as nat-
ural starting points for the discussion of related wares, and questions of shape and
decoration are treated as they arise. The Cheng-te wares stand in the middle of a
transitional period between what might be called the typical styles of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries. Vestiges of the earlier refinement are still evident, and many
beautiful pieces were produced in this short reign before the full effect of mass pro-
duction began to be felt in Chia-ching. Much of the traditional repertory continued in
use with outUne and wash drawing now almost universal, and among the new shapes
were small jars of various shapes, a deep cupUke bowl, and a large vase with baluster
body and tall neck with loose ring handles.'"
The most striking development was the sudden appearance of a group of wares
which include Persian and Arabic inscriptions as part of the underglaze blue decora-
tion, an innovation that was employed not only on the usual vessels but also on a series
of shapes that seem to be new at this time. Among these are boxes, brush rests, hat-
stands, table screens, and candlesticks; the last in particular is a miniature reproduc-
ers None of these is represented in the Ardebil Collection; cf. Garner, Oriental blue and white,
plates 46-48; and PMA 103.
121
122 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
tion of a form widely used in the Near East."'^ The widespread influence of Islam in
China in the Cheng-te period is well documented,"'* and it has been assumed that these
wares were made for the Chinese MusUms. This may have been the general practice,
for most of the examples known today seem to have come from China, but it should
be noted that as of the present writing we know of no regulation forbidding their
export.
The two pieces so decorated in the Ardebil Collection are of ordinary Chinese
shapes. One is the largest and finest dish of the type seen thus far and at the same time
the earliest piece in the collection to be marked with the proper nien-hao (29.313,
pis. 75 and 76).''" The rim is decorated with 32 smaU roundels; in the center, a scroll
pattern surrounds a quatrefoil frame in which is a rectangular panel filled with a bold
Arabic inscription which may be translated "Thanks for his goodness." On the under
side of the rim is an unusual design made up of what look like bunches of three cherry-
stones on stems alternately springing from opposite sides of the field. Below this is the
main decoration of foliate patterns scrolling around eight circles of Arabic phrases
which combine to read, "Said the Prophet on whom be peace, 'Man's praise to him
who gives should be increased; ingratitude for favor causes it to disappear'." Both are
written in the thulth script. A horizontal cartouche set above and between two of
these circles encloses the 6-character Cheng-te mark. It should be noted that these
texts are not Qu'ranic in origin. In some cases they are, but on the limited number of
pieces known to us the texts range from Qu'ranic quotations through all sorts of
aphorisms and cHches from various literary and popular sources down to simple
descriptions of the objects on which they appear, as for example a brush rest which
carries the phrase "The pen is mightier than the sword" and another on which the
inscription merely says "pen rest" in Persian.'''*'
-^^ Garner, op. cit., plates 43-45. In his note 2 on p. 29 he remarks that he finds the resem-
blance of the porcelain candlesticks to their Near Eastern prototypes very small. There are, of
course, several types of Islamic candlesticks, but while no exact copy has been seen, the general
form of the handful of known examples in Cheng-te porcelain seems to reflect clearly the influence
of those illustrated in A. U. Pope, Survey, vol. 6, plates 1332, 1333, 1364, 1371; and Barrett,
Islamic metalwork in the British Museum, pp. 24 and 35.
Cf. P. PeUiot, Le Hoja et le Sayyid Husain de I'histoire des Ming, TP, 38 (1948) : 81-292,
for an extensive account of Muslim activity in this reign. Additional material may be found in
B. Laufer, Chinese Muhammedan bronzes, Ars Islamica 1 (1934) : 133-146, and in P. Kahle's trans-
lation of the Khitai Nameh of the Sayyid 'All Ekber. The last is stiU unpubhshed, but the translator
has been kind enough to give me a copy of his prehminary manuscript. C. L. Pickens, Jr., Annotated
bibliography of literature on Islam in China, Hankow, 1950, Usts the standard publications on the
subject as a whole.
A white saucer is correctly marked Ch'eng-hua, and several white and colored pieces are
marked Hung-chih; see pp. 146, 149, and plates 115-116 below. 29.313 is the earliest properly
marked blue-and- white.
Cf . Gamer, Oriental blue and white, plate 44A.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
123
A detail of particular interest in the physical structure of this dish is the deep
and sharply undercut foot. All the large dishes of earlier periods have relatively low
feet which slope inward to the base at varying angles; but in the present instance the
opposite is true, and the angle between the base and the inside of the foot is so acute
that the dish can be Ufted quite safely by the fingertips at that point. The profile draw-
ings of typical foot rims selected from dishes in the Ardebil Collection show the
gradual change in fashion with respect to this detail (pis. 139-142) . The development
from low simple feet in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to high and more or less
sharply undercut feet in the sixteenth is evident so far as the large dishes are concerned.
But to set up this general principle as an infaUible rule would be absurd for not every
large sixteenth-century dish has an undercut foot; on the other hand, however, no
undercut feet have thus far been observed on large dishes of earlier date. As in the
case of other details, this evolution of foot structure may be used as an aid to attribu-
tion if treated with due caution and respect, and if it be remembered that it applies to
large dishes alone; the situation seems to be somewhat different in regard to vessels of
other shapes. So far as the Ardebil Collection is concerned it is particularly ap-
propriate to have this sixteenth-century characteristic so strikingly documented by
this magnificent Cheng-te dish.
The second Muslim piece is quite different in character (29.346, pi. 77), This
is a small bowl decorated inside with a border of Arabic script and a central circle
enclosing eight lines of text; outside are four circles framing similar texts, and these
are separated by cloud scrolls while a band of lotus panels surrounds the bowl below.
Underneath, within a double circle, is a 6-character Hsuan-te mark. As will be seen
in comparison with the clear strong caUigraphy on the large dish, the writing on this
bowl in a debased naskhi script is inferior in every way, the strokes are uncertain,
the fines uneven and the roundels overcrowded; and the text itself has been char-
acterized as "a misunderstood series of disconnected phrases and half phrases of a
eulogistic and Qu'ranic nature written by a person with a very imperfect knowledge
of Arabic." The bowl itself is obviously not a product of the early fifteenth century.
The form, the foot, the style of decoration, and indeed the writing of the Hsuan-te
mark itself all point to a time after 1500.
Muslim blue-and-white marked with other than the Cheng-te nien-hao are known
but seem to be rather rare. One is a dish in the collection of Sir David Home which
is marked Hung-chih.'"" The body is buff rather than white; the blue is good in color
but somewhat pale; and the potting is heavy and lacking in finesse. It is a coarse piece
made in some outlying region, perhaps near one of the coastal towns of southeast
2" For this comment I am indebted to D. S. Rice, of the University of London.
257a Tjig owner has been kind enough to supply me with two photographs of this dish which are
reproduced on plate 138. It was OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 190 (not illustrated).
124 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
China; and if we are to accept the broad definition of Swatow wares proposed by Mrs.
Aga-Oglu, it might perhaps be classified in that group."* The indifferently written
Arabic script appears on some of the enameled Swatow pieces in much the same pat-
terns as those used on this blue-and-white, and the only surprising thing would be to
see a Swatow piece with a nien-hao; but the fact that one has not been seen before
need not mean that they do not exist, nor is there any reason such a piece could not
have been made in the Hung-chih period. Islam in China was by no means Hmited to
the Cheng-te reign, and Persian was the lingua franca of commerce in the southeastern
seaports over several centuries. So in spite of the differences between these two pieces
marked Hsuan-te and Hung-chih and the better known Muslim wares with Cheng-te
marks, they may all be datable within about the first two decades of the sixteenth
century.
Two more dishes illustrated here may possibly belong to the early part of the
century, although they are admittedly difiicult to place. The decoration of 29.131
(pi. 78) consists of a large floral scroll, which may be intended to show camellias, in
the cavetto; and in the center within a ring of degenerate classic scroll is a fantastic
rock surrounded by tree peonies. Outside are scrolling peonies and a second classic
scroll in the same manner. The pattern is closely crowded all over the surface and
boldly but very skillfully painted in outline filled with graded wash. The base is un-
glazed, sHghtly convex and has a high and deeply undercut foot closely resembling
that on the large Cheng-te dish just described. In some ways this dish seems related
to certain pieces tentatively assigned to the latter part of the previous century,"'' and
they may all have been made within a decade or two of each other; but the painting
here, though somewhat stiff, is done with great precision, and the similarity of the foot
to that of the Cheng-te dish strongly suggests that the two are contemporary. Another
member of this family is in Istanbul, a dish of similar size and style decorated with a
fish leaping among aquatic plants.'"" Even more difficult to place is 29.132 (pi. 78) ;
the size and shape of the vessel and the treatment of the foot rim relate it to the great
Cheng-te dish 29.313, but the drawing of the interior decoration is related in style to
that in the cavetto of 29.137 (pi. 71 ), which has some claim to a late fifteenth-century
attribution. The bold floral scroll on the outside of this dish, although more widely
spaced, also tends to fink it with 29.131; and for the time being it seems best to place
it in the same group, within a decade or so of the year 1500.
258 Qf j/jg so-called "Swatow" wares: types and problems of provenance, FECB, vol. 7, no. 2
(June 1955): pp. 1-34. See also Tom Harrisson's very apt remarks on pp. 35-37 of the same
volume urging continued use of the term "Swatow" to cover all these wares until we know a good
deal more than we do now.
Nos. 29.136, 29.137, 29.139, plates 71-72.
^'^oCf. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951): plate 14.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
125
With the exception of the above-mentioned pieces, the sixteenth-century blue-
and-white wares in the Ardebil Collection belong to the Chia-ching and Wan-li reigns.
Of a total of some 350 pieces, 28 have proper nien-hao, 2 are marked Ta-ming-nien-
tsao, 13 have commendation marks, and 10 carry spurious nien-hao of the fifteenth
century. Most of the wares of this long period between 1522 and 1611, the terminal
date of the collection, are well-known types and need not be described in detail. The
60-odd selected for illustration suggest the general range, and the attempt has been
made to include those with unfamihar designs and in some cases with hitherto un-
recorded shapes. With few exceptions the quahty of these wares is mediocre, and in
some instances it is downright poor. The rarity of fine pieces hke 29.355 (pi. 83),
29.369 (pi. 85), and 29.477 (pi. 86) and a few others among the large body of Chia-
ching and Wan-li wares in the Ardebil Collection reflects the general state of the
porcelain production in those reigns. QuaUty had by this time given way to quantity
as the primary desideratum, and in times when orders for the Palace alone amounted
to more than a hundred thousand pieces in a single year it can well be understood that
potter and decorator ahke had Httle time to work with the care that was essential to
the making of some of the superb wares of the fifteenth century. For once, it seems,
the Chinese forsook their traditional pride of craftsmanship, and some day we may
know more about the reasons for this lapse; but from the evidence provided by the
porcelains themselves we can only conclude that they were working under extreme
pressure from masters whose tastes had in some mysterious way been perverted from
ideals of refinement to those of abundance. The fact that China was seriously pre-
occupied in defensive warfare with the Mongols during the Chia-ching reign and with
the Japanese until the death of Hideyoshi in 1598 is in itself hardly a sufficient
explanation.
While certain well-known types have come to be recognized as Chia-ching and
others are clearly Wan-li, there is a considerable body of unmarked sixteenth-century
wares which remains unclassified. Many of the types of decoration appear to have
been used equally in both reigns; nor does the intervening 6-year reign of Lung-ch'ing
seem to have left its mark at all beyond the handful of pieces, some of unusual shapes,
which are known because they bear the mark. There are none of these in the group
under discussion, and for all practical purposes a designation of "late sixteenth cen-
tury" will here mean Chia-ching or Wan-H. A case in point is provided by a group of
five large vessels of kuan shape decorated with 5-clawed dragons. The one illustrated
(29.520, pi. 79) has the Wan-U mark written in six characters in a horizontal line on
the neck, but the other four are marked Chia-ching, in three cases in a glazed circle
in the center of the unglazed base. Others of this family with the Chia-ching mark
on the neck are known.^" To pick this Wan-li vessel out of the group without recourse
Cf., e.g., Pope, Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art, p. 37, no. 45,36; Hobson,
Chinese pottery and porcelain, vol. 2, plate 72.
126 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
to the mark would be next to impossible, and this instance illustrates the futility of
trying to make precise attributions within the large mass of unmarked blue-and-white
produced in this period.
Altogether the collection includes some 35 large vessels of this shape with various
motifs in the decoration. Landscape scenes with figures, shou characters, medalHons,
floral patterns, lions, and lotus scrolls are the principal categories into which they
may be divided, and one of the lotus-scroll group with Chia-ching mark on the base is
illustrated on plate 79 (29.515). Standing alone is the coarse kuan, on the same
plate, with four loop handles on the shoulder which is decorated with very crudely
painted dragons equipped with spindly 4-clawed chickenHke feet. The whole tone
of the piece is rather gray and the glaze is covered with a brownish crackle. While the
roughly cut base lacks the gravelly adhesions usually associated with the type, the
vase clearly belongs to the family of which several members have been found in the
Philippines and two of which were pubhshed by Mrs. Kamer Aga-Oglu."'" Fifteen
more vessels of the type are in the collection of the Topkapu Sarayi Miizesi in Istan-
bul, and there are at least four in the Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden and
all of them may well stem from the same source, some unknown kiln on the southeast
coast of China which produced crude porcelains for the export trade. Such variations
as may be observed in the drawing, the blue, the glaze, the base, and other details
from one piece to another may be ascribed to the primitive conditions and inferior
methods and materials available to the proprietor of this unknown provincial kiln.
Three of the ten pieces with Chia-ching marks are illustrated on plates 80-82.
No. 29.364 is a good example of the decorative style involving the use of trees with
trunks and branches distorted into the forms of auspicious characters. In the center
a pine takes on the aspect of the character shou "longevity," which is the quality
symbolized by the tree itself; and on the outside are two more pines in the same guise
while a bamboo depicts a fu "happiness" and a prunus represents the character hsi
"joy." A dish with grapes, squirrels, and birds in the border, plain white cavetto,
and a deer and a crane in a landscape in the center, is similarly marked (29.262,
pi. 81). Outside are five roundels with flying cranes, reserved in white on a blue
ground, and an equal number of flower scrolls under the rim. Both of these pieces are
of moderately good quality for Chia-ching wares. Much more crudely done in a
blurry, muddy blue is 29.140 (pi. 82), and the mark is very poorly written indeed.
This and the fact that the last character is tsao instead of the more usual chih combine
Ming export blue and white jars in the University of Michigan. AQ, 11 (1948) : 201-217.
Cf. Pope, Fourteenth-century blue-and-white, p. 21, and ACASA, 5 (1951 ) : plate 5.
The bamboo and the prunus are difficult to read, and I am indebted to A. G. Wenley for
these suggested interpretations of the Ts'ao-shu forms. He has also called my attention to the fact
that the compound hsi-shou refers especially to the seventy-seventh birthday, and a bowl thus dec-
orated would be an appropriate gift on such an occasion.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
127
to suggest that it is the work of some minor private kiln engaged in making cheap
wares for popular consumption. The question of the use of tsao as the verb in nien-
hao is not well understood, nor is there much evidence on which to base any con-
clusions. Beyond the fact that it seems to occur most commonly on poor-quality
wares in the sixteenth century, almost nothing is known, and httle is to be gained by
speculation at this time.""'
A set of nine bowls of the same size and shape, all with Wan-li marks and all
with the same decoration, are of better than average quality for the period and pro-
vide another interesting illustration of the differences that may be found between what
are, for all practical purposes, identical members of a set (29.354-362). In the
presence of the bowls themselves the most striking thing is perhaps the change in
tone of the blue from one to another, a condition that can be observed in the photo-
graphs of the two examples selected for plates 83-84. The design of banana and
bamboo in a bleak landscape is unusual and, though always the same scene, is never
twice identical within the set. There can be httle doubt that this represents the work
of several hands copying a single pattern; but the variation in the marks may signify
nothing more than differences in the amount and quaHty of ink with which the brush
was charged. Three more marked Wan-U pieces are above the general level of quaUty,
a bowl with lotus scrolls under a border of diamond diaper pattern framing swastikas
(29.369, pi. 85) and two tall heavy mei-p'ing decorated with landscape scenes with
figures and marked in evenly spaced characters around the upper shoulders (29.402,
405). One of these is shown on plate 86; and it should be noted that although alike
in every other respect this one is 5 inches taller than its fellow.
The shape of these mei-p'ing should be mentioned as they represent the last stage
of the development of the form in the Ming Dynasty.'"" The long almost straight Hnes
of the profile are somewhat reminiscent of the fourteenth century, but there the
resemblance stops. The shoulder is high, not sloping; the neck rises to almost twice
the height it had on the earlier wares; and the widely flaring form of the latter, topped
by a vertical hp, is entirely new (29.402, pi. 86, and p. 63). Only a few dated six-
teenth-century mei-p'ing are known, but it seems quite hkely that more than one shape
was in use, and it may not be possible to estabhsh a typical shape for the period even
though most of the marked pieces conform to the type illustrated here.'"
Cf. p. 114 above.
^'^^ See p. 63 above.
2" A covered mei-p'ing in the Palace Museum is made in the same shape (cf. Ku-kung Ucp;
16, p. 13); but the cover makes it impossible to see the neck. It is about 15i inches high, and
the decoration is so similar to that on our piece that it would be very difficult to distinguish them
chronologically were it not for the Chia-ching mark on the one in Peking. A plain white one in the
British Museum (1945-10-16-15) has incised designs and the Chia-ching mark incised around the
shoulder; it is 16i inches high, with the form of the body and proportions of the neck appropriate
to the period. A very crude mei-p'ing with both Chia-ching and Hsiian-te marks poorly written in a
128 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Among the unmarked wares a large double-gourd vase is very striking with bold
all-over pattern of auspicious shou characters written in several different forms in-
cluding that of a twisted peach tree seen in the upper roundel (pi. 86) . On the lower
section the pine in a group of the three friends is contorted into another character.
The quality of this piece is good if not outstanding, but the total effect is somewhat
marred by a coarse and gravelly base. A similar piece formerly in the Bloxam Col-
lection was attributed by Hobson to the Wan-li period; but lacking more definite
evidence there seems no reason why it could not equally well be Chia-ching. The
same is true of most of the pieces that follow whether they have marks of commenda-
tion, spurious fifteenth-century nien-hao, or no marks at all. On the same plate are
three views of a curious spherical object on a high flaring foot. In form it resembles
the type of thing that has been called a hatstand,"'"' but this has on top of it the remains
of some sort of rim within which are nine perforations, one of which is now filled up
with glaze. Around the main surface is a landscape scene with gentlemen and at-
tendants in a garden, a crane, and a pavilion in the clouds, all drawn in a coarse style.
On the base is the mark Hsuan-te-nien-tsao in underglaze blue (29.456, pi. 86). Five
identical bowls (29.370-374), of which one is shown on plate 87, are decorated with
borders of flying horses and cloud scrolls above broad zones of fruiting peach trees
with birds on the branches and butterflies flitting in between; these are marked Fu-
kuei-chia-ch'i in a square, and this commendatory phrase is usually associated with the
Chia-ching reign. On the same plate is a smaller bowl of somewhat finer quality
(29.377) decorated with a similar motif, though in this case the trees are pome-
granates. Inside is a diaper border of a type found on many Chia-ching wares and on
the base is an apocryphal Hsuan-te mark in six characters. A shallow bowl in similar
style has prunus sprays, dragonflies, and a crescent moon on the outside, while within
is a heavy segmented blue border framing eight cranes amid cloud scrolls (pi. 88).
Somewhat more formally treated is 29.397 with plain rim on plate 89, which has three
encircHng lines crudely incised in the paste as the only decoration inside while the
outside shows three ogival medallions each framing two lotus blossoms on a honey-
comb diaper ground and separated by pairs of cloud scrolls. Here again the mark is
Fu-kuei-chia-ch'i, but otherwise the bowl has nothing in common with 29.371. While
the latter is quite ordinary in every respect, this smaller bowl is not only very well
line just below the shoulder is pubUshed in TOCS (1928-1930) on plate 3; the mark is admittedly
freakish, but the piece cannot be earlier than the sixteenth century and serves to suggest the date
for a number of coarse mei-p'ing with pinched-in waists which have sometimes been considered
early (cf., e.g., Detroit catalogue. The arts of the Ming Dynasty, no. 93; Kushi, op. cit., pp. 55-56;
TOCS, 21: pi. 3b). A transition between the most usual forms of the fifteenth century and the
elongated types with Chia-ching and Wan-U marks is appropriately represented in the British
Museum by a piece decorated with dragons in green enamel and bearing the Hung-chih mark incised
on the shoulder (cf. Jenyns, Ming, pi. 76B).
Cf. Chinese ceramics in private collections, p. Ill (fig. 195).
Gamer, Oriental blue and white, plate 44B.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
129
potted but is decorated with a blue almost as rich and brilliant as that of the K'ang-hsi
period, and the quaUty of the drawing anticipates the blue-and-white style of that
great Manchu reign.
Several more coarse pieces of this period have unusual characteristics which
make them worth describing. On 29.265 (pi. 89) is a central decoration of the three
friends growing in an elaborate jar which stands on a terrace with a tiled floor; the
posts of the balustrade are surmounted by lions. The pine growing in the center of
the group is twisted into the character shou. No. 29.314 on the same plate is a dish
decorated with a crowded composition showing a ch'i-Iin at sea. At the top of the
scene, above a layer of clouds, is a mountain landscape with pines; and on the rim
are seahorses flying among mountains and clouds over waves. On the base is the 6-
character Hsiian-te mark in underglaze blue. Another dish of uncommonly coarse
ware is 29.279 (pi. 90); the flattened foliate rim is decorated with a sketchily drawn
stylized design, and the plain white cavetto is radially fluted surrounding a central
roundel framing a roughly drawn bush with three large flowers standing on an arching
horizon. On the underside the dish is very crudely cut with deep, uneven radial in-
cisions to match the internal fluting; and, strangest of all, the roughly glazed base is
marked in underglaze blue with a poorly drawn swastika placed off center in a double
circle.'*"" On the same plate is a dish with flying birds and prunus sprays surrounding a
central peach tree growing from a pot into the form of a shou character; the mark in
this case is a spurious 6-character Hsiian-te nien-hao, and the two pieces cannot be
far apart in date.
Among the dishes is one with a 6-character Chia-ching mark on the base and a
most curious design inside (29.148, pi. 91). At the right of the composition are five
deer on a grassy bank by the edge of a body of water; in the water at the left is a
tortoise, and above it is a waterfall pouring down from above and splashing onto the
surface at the horizon. This waterfall in turn originates in a second and smaller land-
scape, which is drawn upside down with trees growing downward from the upper left-
hand corner of the circle. Another waterfall is depicted on no. 29.147, where it also
springs from an inverted landscape of rocks, bamboo, and pine at the top of the scene.
It divides the whole composition vertically; and two animals, an elephant and a pai-
ts'e, are shown at the right and left of the pool into which the cascade plunges. A
variant of this scene is shown on a dish published by Kushi."" Such decoration seems
rare and its significance is not clear at this writing.
Deer in a landscape are among the commoner motifs found in this group, and
several types are illustrated. Nos. 29.231 and 29.233 (pi. 92) are two from a set of
six which bear the same design. In this scene there are four of the animals beneath
overhanging trees and rocks. Two of them carry fungus plants in their mouths and
See also p. 162 below.
Shina minsho toji zukan, plate 93.
130 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
recall in very debased form the design on the beautiful dish assigned to the late fif-
teenth century in the previous section."' In the rims of this set are fungus scrolls
and long thin dragons with bifurcated tails and manes of perfectly straight hair
streaming backward. The juxtaposition of two members of this set shows again the
minor differences in detail that creep in when a single composition is repeated again
and again. No. 29.239 shows a scene with two deer related to those under discussion.
The animals are here rendered more faithfully, and the trees, too, reflect the presence
of a more skillful hand; at the left a tiny waterfall again pours from an inverted land-
scape into a lake. Of particular interest is the well-drawn bat which flies above the
deer on the left. This creature plays an important role in the decorative repertory of
the Ch'ing Dynasty where it is well known to have been used as a rebus, fu "bat,"
standing for fu "happiness." The question of the origin of this rebus has been a sub-
ject of discussion; and efforts to interpret some of the highly styUzed designs on Han
Dynasty bronze mirrors in this way seem to have little ground for support. In this
case, however, there can be no doubt about the nature of the animal intended, and
the rebus fu (bat = happiness) is reinforced by the rebus lu (deer = prosperity),
thus multiplying the felicitous import of the scene. Occurring as it does on this dish
in the Ardebil Collection, it is the only undoubted Ming example on porcelain to have
come to this writer's attention. The border of this dish consists of a long continuous
landscape scene which also plays an important part in the decoration of this period.
It occurs again in modified form on 29.242 (pi. 92) where the central design is quite
different from those just described. Here a crowded garden scene includes the corner
of a paviHon at the left, a large tree at the right and, in between, a rock, various plants,
and a golden pheasant, two mandarin ducks in the water, a flying goose, two birds
which may be doves on a branch, and a butterfly. All sorts of changes are rung on
this theme as on all others in the huge output of blue-and-white of this period.
Of all the landscape scenes used at this time to decorate porcelain, one of the
most stylish is that found on 29.205 (pi. 93), where an 8-story pagoda rising in the
foreground is complemented by the vertical movement of the tall peaks spaced at
intervals through the landscape. The one at the left is topped by a willow, while pines
crown the summit on the right and the row of hills above the clouds in the back-
ground. In the center are two flat-topped rocks surmounted by thatched pavilions,
and in the right foreground a man sits in a boat with furled sail contemplating the
beauty of this fairy landscape. Here in a circle some 1 1 inches in diameter the painter
has captured with extraordinary economy of means one of those limitless magic land-
scapes so dear to the heart of the Taoist sage. The scene is drawn with beautiful
clarity in a blue that is pure and strong to a degree rarely found in wares of this class,
and these quahties are maintained to the full in the rhythmic floral scroll of the border
and the cranes and formal devices on the back of the dish. The central landscape will
2" P. 118 and plate 71.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
131
be recognized as the type-scene depicted in red and green enamels on some of the large
dishes of so-called "Swatow" type, though the latter are so much less refined in every
respect that all similarity ends with the spirit of the composition itself. In fact the pair
of dishes under discussion are outstanding in quality among all the known wares of the
type, as will be seen by comparison with 29.207 and 29.208 (pi. 94), two much more
ordinary examples selected from a set of seven. The latter demonstrate the nature of
the variations introduced within this landscape type and also show another common
border of the period with white cranes among lotus.
Approaching the ultimate refinement in the sixteenth-century landscape style on
porcelain is the decoration of the two bowls on plate 95. Related to those we have
just seen, they are here given full play over the entire outer surface uninhibited by
decorative borders of any kind. The style is much less formal than that of landscapes
painted on porcelain in earlier times, and the Httle scenes have some of the quality of
ink painting in their freedom and spontaneity with a use of graded washes in the
representation of rocks and mountains that shows an increasing mastery over the diffi-
cult medium. No. 29.401 is painted with a great deal of spirit on a delicately potted
bowl of elegant proportions, whereas the landscape on 29.376 lacks some of the so-
phistication of the former, is a little stiffer, and perhaps is more appropriate to the
larger, more sturdily potted bowl. These unmarked bowls with glazed bases are re-
lated in spirit to two well-known pieces of even better quality which are marked Tai-
ko-chia ch'i ^M^^ and which are perhaps the finest examples of porcelain paint-
ing to have survived from this period. Here again it is necessary to look ahead for par-
allels to the K'ang-hsi reign some hundred years hence when the painting of landscapes
in underglaze blue reached its final perfection. These bowls stand on the penultimate
rung of this ladder of development and, to indulge in a purely subjective judgment,
mark in their way one of the high spots in the whole history of blue-and-white.
One of the most remarkable pieces in the collection is shown on plate 96. A
thickly potted vessel in a shape not seen before, it resembles nothing so much as a
champagne bucket. The broad surface of the lip is unglazed, and this biscuit area
extends three-quarters of an inch down the inside surface of the vessel; below this very
precise horizontal line the inner surface is completely glazed. This unglazed rim may
mean that the vessel once had a cover. The upper part is decorated with a landscape
scene showing, on each side, two deer within a fenced enclosure, and below is a carp
leaping among waves. It is possible to identify these deer as the species first noted and
sent to Europe in 1866 by the French naturalist Abbe Armand David, who found a
-"Cf. Hobson, Catalogue of . . . the David Collection, pi. 133, and OCS Catalogue, 1953,
no. 193, plate 13. The two translations offered for this phrase are "elegant vessel for the terrace
pavilion" and "elegant vessel for the president (of the Six Boards)." Without context both are
acceptable, but when it was written, one and not the other must have been specifically intended;
perhaps one day we shall know which.
132 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
herd in the Imperial Park at Hai-tzu some miles south of Peking,"^ Once plentiful
throughout China, they were even then near extinction, and the handful of survivors
is said to have been killed by the troops during the Boxer uprising of 1900-1901.
Those specimens known in European and American zoos today are descended from the
pair sent to Europe by Pere David; and the species {Elaphurus davidianus) is distin-
guished by its large feet, large muzzle, thick tail, and unusually heavy horns, all
clearly showing in this representation. The fence in the drawing may mean that even
in Ming times these deer were kept in enclosed parks. The carp on the lower section
is handled in much the same way as are those on the Chia-ching covered jars decorated
in red, yellow, and green enamels, of which a number of examples are known. On the
same plate are two views of a bowl (29.367) with a crudely drawn and crowded scene
of a most unusual subject. Among large flowers are three white hares, one of which lies
on its back in an attitude of terror with its front paws raised as if to defend itself
against a hawk which is just in the act of striking. For all its crudity this dramatic little
scene shows considerable reahsm in the rendering of the hawk's braking wings and the
talons extended forward about to seize the unhappy victim. Further interest attaches
to this bowl because of the 6-character Ch'eng-hua mark on its base, a mark well
known on eighteenth-century wares but not so familiar on those of the sixteenth cen-
tury. While there can be little question about the date of this piece, one gets the im-
pression that the potter had it in mind to copy a real Ch'eng-hua bowl from the careful
way he made the narrow foot rim and finished the smooth base. His shortcomings are
revealed in addition, of course, to the style of the drawing, in the quahty of the glaze
which has chipped considerably on the rim indicating an unsatisfactory bond with the
porcelain body, and in the preparation of the clay which resulted in a sizable fire crack
on the base.
The four drinking vessels of kendi type shown on plate 97 illustrate some of the
variations found in the sixteenth-century versions of this form. Nos. 29.445 and 29.466
have the familiar rounded body and bulbous mammiform spout, and both are deco-
rated with landscape scenes one of which introduces two waterfowl which may possibly
be intended to represent teal, although identification is by no means certain."' The
other two are much more fanciful with bodies in the forms of an elephant and a frog,
respectively, and in each case the mouth of the animal serves as the drinking spout of
the vessel. Parts of the elephant have been broken and restored with plaster, and it may
-•^ David, Armand, Abbe David's diary, pp. 5-6, 133.
Cf. pp. 116-118 above, and plate 69.
The latter deserves special notice because the drawing of the birds and the foliage looks
very much like the treatment of similar subject matter on a small bowl in the Victoria and Albert
Museum published by Garner {op. cit., pi. 65A, left) as perhaps belonging to the Transition period
in the mid-seventeenth century. This suggests that the Transition style began well before the end
of Wan-li or some years earlier than has been generally recognized. (See also OCS Catalogue, 1953,
no. 227, which is wrongly numbered 219 on pi. 14; Garner, op. cit., p. 38; and Jenyns, Later
Chinese porcelain, p. 17.)
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
133
be that the Shah 'Abbas mark which is now missing was engraved on one of these
areas. A similar elephant seems to have reached Europe at an early date, for it is repre-
sented in a still-hfe painting by Adrian van Utrecht."® A frog Hke 29.465 was pub-
lished as early as 1881 by du Sartel,'" and another is in the Topkapu Sarayi in Istan-
bul, which collection also includes one in the form of a white ox caparisoned, like our
elephant, with a blanket decorated with a hare on a diapered blue ground. The two
vessels in the form of phoenixes pubhshed by Sir Percival David "'^ extend the repertory
of animal and bird forms to four, and it may be that even more were used.
Four ewers of related shapes are shown together on plate 98 to facilitate a compar-
ative study of the group. The most striking exception to the customary type form is
the bulging onion top surmounted by a vertical rim which distinguishes 29.434 from its
fellows; at present no precedent is known for this modification of the ewer. Three of
them have the usual tear-shaped medallions on the sides; and one of these is modeled
in openwork biscuit depicting a peacock and a peahen by a rock among peonies, a type
of decoration sometimes seen on sixteenth-century ewers.
This group of four seems at first glance to hold together very satisfactorily; all
have marks of the Hsuan-te period written in the style usually associated with the late
sixteenth century. Yet repeated study of the photographs over a long period of time
has given rise to certain questions which are raised here in the interest of suggesting a
possible Une of further inquiry. It is the shape of 29.435 that first strikes the attention;
here is a ewer more sturdy and compact in form than the others, and the foot, although
flaring slightly, is relatively low. Taken as a bottle without spout and handle, the ves-
sel is not unlike its fifteenth-century prototype in over-all proportion. Could it not
possibly be somewhat earHer than the rest, dating, perhaps, from nearer the year 1500?
With this thought in mind, it will be noticed that the painting of the decoration does
not altogether preclude such an attribution. In the spiral scroll of the medallion the
leaves are tightly drawn in outline filled with wash as they are on the bottle tentatively
assigned to the Hung-chih period (29.451, pi. 74), on two bowls which may be Ch'eng-
hua or Hung-chih (pis. 64 and 66), and in the cavetto of the dish with two deer which
has been included in the same group (pi. 71). Be it noted again, however, that this
matter of drawing is sUm evidence indeed particularly from 1500 onward when a great
variety of styles was in use; and these pieces are cited only as examples of this particu-
lar manner in the late-fifteenth-early-sixteenth-century period. That it continued on is
abundantly clear from many of the pieces in this collection, including the very ewers
on this plate. So no conclusion is drawn; but shm as it is, this is the kind of evidence
No. 984 in the Musee des Beaux Arts, Brussels. This painting depicts no less than seven
well-drawn pieces of Chinese blue-and-white, the largest number seen thus far in one of these seven-
teenth-century Dutch paintings.
Porcelaine de Chine, p. 23, fig. 10.
Cf. TOCS, 11 (1933-1934) : plate 8. A duck-shaped vessel is in the Princessehof Museum
(ACASA, 5, 1951, pi. 8a) but is of a different type with a small fuimel-like opening on one side.
134 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
that must be studied, and until such a ewer comes to Hght with better documentation
than this, the first impression, that all four of these pieces are contemporary, must
prevail.
Most widely pubhshed of those few pieces in the Ardebil Collection which have
been reproduced heretofore is the so-called "fountain ewer" shown at the left on plate
99. It first appeared in one of Sarre's general views of the porcelain collection as he
found it in the Shrine; the same photograph was used again by Munsterberg and also
by Hannover,''® and the curiously un-Chinese subject of the decoration had already
excited the interest of scholars a generation earlier. Apparently the first to notice it in
the West was Sir Augustus Franks. As seen on the Ardebil example the fountain
consists of a broad deep basin ornamented around the outside with a row of erect ser-
rated leaves and supported by an elaborate understructure which is partially obscured
by the body of a recumbent ch'i-lin. It is not clear in the drawing whether this is in-
tended as a sculptural representation of a ch'i-lin which serves as part of the base of
the fountain or whether it represents a live ch'i-lin lying down to cool itself in the
shadow of the basin. In any case, the beast rests on a low platform of two levels which
is supported in turn on low scrolling feet such as are used for example on bulb bowls
of Chiin ware. From the lower edge of the basin protrude two spouts each terminating
in a monster head which spews forth a stream of water onto the ground below. In the
center of the basin, and surrounded by the bubbling water therein, rises the superstruc-
ture, in this case based on a Awan-shaped vase decorated with white lotus scrolls on a
blue ground. From this vase emerges an elaborately ornamented column which rises
to support a bulbous member equipped with two more monster heads from which
streams of water pour into the basin below. Finally, as the central column or pipe con-
tinues upward, two bird-headed spouts on long gracefully curving necks send further
streams of water into the basin; and the short finial is a curious form that defies the
written word. Examination of the pieces which bear this decora-
tion reveals many differences in the structural details of the
several fountains depicted and at the same time makes it very
plain that, in spite of the differences, all are based on a common
prototype of non-Chinese origin.
What was this prototype? Although several suggestions
have been made, no entirely satisfactory solution has been
found.'" Yet there can hardly be any doubt that the fountain Detail. Finiai of the foun-
which served as a model for the Chinese artists originated in *^'ewer'^29 42r(pr%)!'^^
Europe. It seems unhkely that an actual fountain made its way
O. Munsterberg, Chinesische Kunstgeschichte, vol. 2, fig. 415; E. Hannover, Keramisk
Haandbog, vol. 2, fig. 133.
Catalogue of a collection of oriental porcelain and pottery, London, 1878, p. 22, no. 150.
The latest scholar to treat this question and the only one to go into it at any length is Sir
Percival David whose recent article, The magic fountain in Chinese ceramic art (BMFEA, no. 24,
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
135
to China, and the question is whether they saw a drawing or worked from a verbal
description. The numerous discrepancies in detail from one fountain to another
tend to suggest the latter; but on the other hand a number of the details are so very
precise, so completely un-Chinese, and so remarkably Hke the corresponding details
of certain Italian fountains of the Renaissance that it would seem as though sketches
of some kind must have been available to them/'' In any event, even when a satis-
factory prototype is discovered, be it a single fountain or a composite, the case on
these ewers will still remain open until we discover the means by which it reached
China.'"
1952, pp. 1-9) cites previous references to the type and goes on to venture a new solution by seek-
ing to relate the design to the Magic Fountain constructed in 1254 by the Parisian goldsmith, Guil-
laume Boucher (or Buchier) who was then in the service of Mangu Khan at his capital in Kara-
korum. This miraculous fountain, which dispensed various intoxicating beverages to the assembled
guests of the Mongol ruler and was automatically replenished at the trumpet call of a mechanical
angel when the reservoirs ran low, is known to us from the eyewitness description of Wilham of
Rubruck, a Franciscan monk who journeyed to Karakorum as the envoy of Louis IX (St. Louis) of
France (cf. W. W. RockhiU, The journey of William of Rubruck to the eastern parts of the world,
p. 208; and Leonardo Olschki, Guillaume Boucher, a French artist at the court of the Khans which
provides an interesting study of the symbolism and significance of the fountain). Ingenious and
seductive as Sir Percival's proposal is, there is one difficulty that I find insuperable. Rubruck de-
scribes the fountain as "a great silver tree" and later on adds that "there are branches of silver on
the tree, and leaves and fruit," but no one of the dozen or so fountains depicted on these ewers
bears any resemblance to a tree or has any branches or leaves or fruit that might be taken to suggest
that the Chinese artist had a tree in mind when he made the drawing. Granted that some three
centuries and 1,500 miles intervened between Boucher and his fountain on the one hand and the
Chinese and their ewers on the other, any description of this marvel that might have crossed that two-
fold interval must certainly, however else distorted, have transmitted the fact that it was, above all
else, in the shape of a tree; and it is difficult to beUeve that the Chinese painters for whom trees were
traditionally a favorite subject would have overlooked this essential fact about the appearance of the
fountain if that was what they intended to portray.
Among the books examined in connection with this problem are Giovanni Maggi, Fontane
diverse, Rome, 1618; George Andreas Bockler, Architectura curiosa nova, Nurnberg, 1664; Arduino
Colasanti, Le fontane d'ltalia, Rome, 1926; and Bertha Harris Wiles, The fountains of Florentine
sculptors and their followers from Donatella to Bernini, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1933. Al-
though this is not the place to attempt it, I beheve it would be possible, by making a close study of
these and other works, to assemble enough details from Italian fountains to reconstruct a satisfactory
approximation of the fountain type depicted on these ewers.
Not the least of the problems involved is that of the chronology. One of the fountain ewers
in the Topkapu Sarayi bears the mark of the Chia-ching period (no. 1462), which means that,
unless these marks were copied in the Wan-U reign, the design was drawn not later than 1566. It is
tempting to think that perhaps such a fountain was depicted in one of the Christian paintings or en-
gravings brought to China as part of the missionary effort of the Jesuits; but although Francis Xavier
reached Japan in 1549, and at least one Jesuit, Padre Belchoir Nunes Barreto, was in Macao as
early as November 1555 (cf. Boxer, Fidalgos in the Far East, p. 3) ; there seems to be no record of
136 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Aside from the fountain design, the decoration of the ewer follows the normal
repertory of the late sixteenth century; a row of stiff leaves surrounds the neck above
a stylized floral scroll, and the spout is covered with a formal flame pattern. Floral
scrolls surround the high foot, and among these are two dragons with thin bodies and
big manes of perfectly straight hair Uke those seen on the rims of a group of six dishes
above.'*' Although high on the outside, the foot is not actually hollow underneath but
forms part of the inside of the vessel as may be seen in the view of the base on plate 99
and in the sectional drawing (pi. 142). This construction is known on other ewers
of this type. On the glazed base is the 6-character mark of the Hsiian-te reign written
in underglaze blue. The mark, the dragons, and the rest of the purely Chinese ele-
ments in the decoration all combine to suggest that this ewer was made in Wan-U; and
these factors together with those relating to the time when the fountain design may
have reached China suggest a strong possibility that the one known Chia-ching mark on
a fountain ewer may be an interpolation.^^'
The other ewer shown on plate 99 is the same high-footed late sixteenth-century
type with purely Chinese decoration. A lotus spray occupies the upper part of the
shoulder, and the main area shows a prancing ch'i-lin in a landscape; underneath the
high hollow foot is the mark of a white hare on a roughly triangular blue ground (p.
162). From the standpoints of potting, clay, glaze, and blue, the two pieces show
every evidence of being contemporary.
A separate class of wares among the sixteenth-century blue-and-white is that
which the Dutch call kraakporselein for the reason that it first appeared in Holland as
part of the booty of a Portuguese carrack, the Santa Catarina, captured by the Dutch in
the Straits of Malacca in 1603. This cargo was sold at auction on the dock in Amster-
dam on 15 August 1604, and the wares immediately achieved such popularity that by
1614 Pontanus in his history of Amsterdam was able to write that Chinese porcelain
in his city was almost commonplace.^''^ Whatever else may have been sent abroad from
China in Ming times, and evidently other types did make their way across the seas, this
is the true "export porcelain." When seen today in company with all the other wares
now known, this kraakporselein has a distinctive character of its own; and although,
as in other phases of this subject, there are borderline cases which resist precise classi-
fication, the large body of wares is relatively easy to single out.
Christian activity on the Chinese mainland between the latter years of the Yiian Dynasty and the
arrival of Matteo Ricci in 1582. The dilemma is clear; either the prototype of the fountain reached
Chma before Ricci or the Chia-ching mark on the Sarayi ewer is apocryphal. In either case the
answer is awaited with interest.
Nos. 29.228-233, plate 92.
See note 283.
285a T Volker, op. cit., pp. 21-23, gives fuller and probably more accurate information on the
early arrival of porcelain in Europe than was known to me at the time the above was written.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
137
The clay, though generally fine and smooth in quaUty, contains occasional im-
perfections and tends to have small pits and pebbles embedded in it here and there.
Even the largest dishes are remarkably thin in potting and seem very brittle; many are
cracked and chipped, and indeed it is surprising that so many have survived at all.
The smaller pieces, dishes of say 14 inches or less, have glazed bases for the most part,
but the larger pieces are not so treated. In both cases, the bottoms are often, though
not invariably, convex, show radial chatter marks produced by the tool with which
they were finished and sometimes have traces of a gravelly substance adhering to the
foot rims. The feet tend to be thin, strongly made, and either vertical or undercut. In
terms of general shape the most noticeable difference between these kraakporseleins
and other sixteenth-century wares is to be found in the dishes; now for the first time
there appears a fofiate edge on a dish without a flattened rim (e.g., 29.203, pi. 101 ),
and in those instances where the rim is flattened the outer horizontal area is wider and
separated from the cavetto by a gentle curve rather than a sharp angle so that both
areas may be decorated as a unit. The blue varies exceedingly from deep rich purplish
shades through paler silvery tones to a thin dry-looking black. Marks, though perhaps
not unknown, are rare. These are the physical characteristics of the group, and al-
though some of them are relatively easy to distinguish at a glance, it is the decoration
which really sets these wares apart.'^^
Although traditional motifs continue in use in the sense that flowers, trees, rocks,
birds, beasts, insects, and formal stylizations are still to be found, the arrangement of
the over-all patterns, the compositions of various groups, and indeed the methods of
drawing some of the individual elements take on an entirely different aspect. Most
striking perhaps is the division of the border designs on the dishes into radial segments
varying in number according to the size of the piece, but usually running from 8 to 12.
The dishes illustrated on plates 100-104 show typical variations in the handhng of this
detail. No. 29.172 is divided into 12 segments in which a fungus spray and a flower
spray alternate as the bottom elements of each, while at the top the sequence diamond,
butterfly, cash, and bee is repeated three times; on 29.264 the segments are flattened
on the outer edges so the dish is decagonal, and there are seven flower sprays, two
groups of aquatic plants, and one panel showing two magpies on the wing in a cloudy
sky with bushes below. Still further variations of this style are shown on 29.203 (pi.
101), while the next six dishes (pis. 102-104) show the more common treatment of
the area where each segment contains a thickened frame of blue wash and is separated
from the next by white bands in which are drawn beaded pendants, sometimes with
diapered areas above and below. Within these frames the compositions may vary from
scenes that are all alike to those that are all different in almost any combination. The
It should be noted, however, that the Dutch themselves have not been precise in their defini-
tion of kraakporselein, and it is not impossible that they might apply the term to certain of the six-
teenth-century types ahready described.
138 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
four dishes on plate 104 for example were selected almost at random from a group of
53 in which, while it could be said that they are all alike, it is probable that no two are
identical. Thirty-eight have foHate rims, the rest plain rims; and six different size
groups are represented with diameters ranging from lOi to 18 inches. This is the
result, no doubt, of mass production, not in our sense of the word where every step
is rigidly guided by a blueprint, but where a master design is given as the model and
each painter has free rein to fill in the allotted areas with any one or more of a set
series of motifs as his fancy dictates. This being the case and with the surface of the
dish broken up into so many small areas to be filled, there is room enough for diversity;
and to sort these wares into groups on the basis of dupUcates is almost out of the
question.
The designs in the centers of the dishes show the same variety of treatment ob-
served in the borders. They may be placed within simple double circles or polygons,
as in the cases of 29.172 and 29.264 (pi. 100), or they may be framed in elaborate
arrangements of overlapping or contiguous diapered panels (pis. 102-104). One of
the favorite subjects was the landscape with deer which is already famiUar from wares
of other types; and in some cases the deer may be identified although many are so
roughly and freely drawn as to ehcit from zoologists no more precise information than
that they are evidently members of the family Cervidae. Those on 29.481 have
already been mentioned as Pere David's deer, and those on 29.148 (pi. 91) though
more sketchily drawn may be the same species. Another identifiable type is that on
29.264 (pi. 100), the Chinese water deer {Hydropotes inermis), a small species with
no horns on either sex but in which the male develops canine tusks as shown on the
left animal in this scene. The two birds in the upper part of the picture, like those in
one of the border segments, are magpies {Pica pica). In one other case an identifica-
tion can be attempted though it remains most uncertain; it is just possible that the
spotted deer on the bowl (29.389) on plate 107 may be intended to represent young
sika, a species common to both China and Japan and characterized by spotted coats.
On some occasions the central landscape scene may include only birds as on
29.174 (pi. 104) where two quail {Coturnix coturnix) are shown in the foreground
while several flights appear in the distant sky. In other instances the birds are used to
form a more abstract design as on 29.172 (pi. 100), where cranes among clouds sur-
round a central medallion framing the hexagram which is composed of the two tri-
grams ch'ien and k'un symbolizing heaven above and earth below. More formal
arrangements include flowers in a vase as on 29.175 (pi. 104) ; and a less usual varia-
tion is found in the set of small dishes of which two are 29.283-4 (pi. 108). In this
group the segmentation of the border is carried out in underglaze slip, and the central
areas in blue-and-white are decorated with various floral patterns and auspicious
objects.
Much the same repertory is found on the bowls. No. 29.394 (pi. 105) has the
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
139
segmentation indicated by the use of 10 vertical floral sprays, although the actual
framing of each unit has been omitted. It is interesting to note that a pair to this bowl
exists in a Copenhagen silver mount dated 1608.'" No. 29.392 on the same plate is
one of the rare marked pieces in this group with the character fu in a square seal form
under the glazed base. An unusually large pair of bowls are 29.379-80 of which one
is illustrated on plate 106; and in this case the decoration is in the most commonly
found kraakporselein style with six ogival medallions, like those on the borders of the
dishes, framing landscape and figure subjects and separated by fungus and lotus
scrolls surmounted by auspicious objects. On the inside are ducks and aquatic plants
surrounding central landscape scenes. The inside of 29.393 (pi. 106) is again deco-
rated in slip, a technique occasionally but not frequently found on these wares; a row
of six cloud collar points Hes above a band of lotus panels which in turn surrounds a
recumbent horse with flame scroll done in underglaze blue. No. 29.388 (pi. 107) is
a small bowl decorated with eight white deer against foliage backgrounds. These little
animals are extremely stylized with their long slender legs, and not only is the type well
known on export wares of this period including a large number of small jars found at
various places all through southeast Asia,'*"® but vessels with the same decoration are
also known in Dutch paintings of the seventeenth century.''"
No. 29.382 (pi. 108) is one of a group of cup-shaped vessels with characteristic
segmented decoration on the outside. Ogival medallions separated by beaded orna-
ments frame landscapes, figure scenes, flowers, and auspicious objects; and on the
insides are floral sprays, books, gourds, fans, etc., similarly framed surrounding in each
case a central design of a bird seated on a rock. With these cups is a series of covers
with the same variety of decoration; and it was impossible to say which cover went with
which cup as they seemed entirely interchangeable. The covers have unglazed flanges
just inside the rims which rest on the unglazed lips of the cups; and the former are
provided with small circular rims on top which serve as "feet" when the covers are
inverted beside the cups as is the case with covered lacquer cups and bowls in China
and Japan today. Two of these "feet" are marked inside with the hare mark, and one
has the character fu in a square. On the same plate is a small ewer {29 AAA) which
may possibly belong to the same group although it is one of those cases where we can-
not be sure the term kraakporselein is applicable. The segmentation is carried out in
the division of the whole vessel into eight vertical panels, one of which shows a sage
seated under a spreading pine branch, in another a sage walks in a mountain land-
E. Hannover, Keramisk haandbog, vol. 2, p. 75, fig. 127; and Jenyns, Ming pottery and
porcelain, plate 96B, which is a better photograph of the same bowl.
Cf. ACASA, 5 (1951) : plate 8b.
E.g., a still life by Jan Soreau (fl. 1615-1638) in the Walters Gallery, Baltimore (no.
37.1902), shows a bowl much hke the one under discussion. Cf. Journal of the Walters Art Gallery,
vol. 17 (1954): 34.
140 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
scape, and the rest are decorated with floral sprays. Under the base is the mark fu-
shou-k'ang-ning in a double square."""
A tall bottle-shaped vase and a ewer on plate 109 may also be members of the
same family with the principle of segmentation emphasized by the hexagonal forms of
the vessels themselves. The bottle (29.468) is decorated with a number of the motifs
already seen on the typical kraakporselein and has the mark of the hare under its base.
The ewer (29.467) is an exceptionally well made piece but so thin and delicate that
it did not fully survive the firing and sags badly to one side when seen from the front.
It may be that the unusually tall and slender foot, which accounts for more than one-
quarter of the height of the vessel, was not sturdy enough to bear the burden imposed
upon it for the fault occurred where it joins the body. On the same plate is a small
ewer (29.473) with high foot and the handle in the form of a rat with floral scrolls on
its back. The rest of the decoration includes two phoenixes forming a medallion on
each side, floral sprays, birds on fruiting branches above, and auspicious objects below.
The piece must originally have had a cover, and the whole shape is most unusual, even
perhaps somewhat un-Chinese, in conception. Under the base is the mark Ta-ming-
nien-tsao in underglaze blue. The final piece of blue-and-white to be illustrated is
29.484, a curious deep cup with flaring rim and low spreading foot, the only piece in
the collection which can in any way lay claim to the designation "stem cup." Like the
ewer with the rat handle it is not kraakporselein but is nevertheless a product of the
second half of the sixteenth century; inside the rim is a border of diaper pattern con-
sisting of small rectangles worked into white diamond-shaped lozenges on a blue
ground, usually considered a typical Chia-ching decoration. The sides are plain, and in
the bottom is a cloud scroll in the form of a swastika. Outside, the border is a diamond
diaper pattern of another type, while six even rows of white blossoms on a ground of
blue wash cover the main part of the body above a band of lotus panels. Blue dots
surround the swollen ring around the top of the foot over a row of pendent leaf forms.
Both the decoration and the shape of this piece are most unusual, and the latter in par-
ticular seems quite un-Chinese in spirit; may this not possibly be an early example of
European influence on the art of the Chinese potter?
The blue-and-white of the sixteenth century as seen in these examples selected
from the Ardebil Collection shows, when viewed as part of the over-all development
that took place in the manufacture of these wares, the steps which led from the rela-
tively small but extremely refined output of the Ch'eng-hua period to the much larger
and, in its own way, highly perfected output of the first two reigns of the Ch'ing
A ewer of similar shape in the British Museum (TOCS, 18, pi. 6e) is decorated with floral
sprays only and has an apocryphal Hsiian-te mark. Fu-shou-k'ang-ning, "good fortune, old age,
health, and repose" is a sixteenth-century mark entirely in keeping with the structure and decoration
of this ewer; and the Ardebil piece so marked tends to verify the presumed date of the British
Museum ewer.
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
141
Dynasty: the Shun-chih reign which, for all that most of the pieces were unmarked,
produced some of the beautifully designed and decorated "Transition" wares, and the
reign called K'ang-hsi which gave the world a standard of excellence in blue-and-white
against which all wares have ever since been measured. The evolution took place, as
a matter of fact, over a period of almost two centuries from the third quarter of the fif-
teenth to the third quarter of the seventeenth; and the reigns of Cheng-te, Chia-ching,
and Wan-H were those in which the principal phases of the change may be observed,
phases which included a gradual deterioration of the old style from exquisite taste and
peerless technique into a routine though still skillful rendering of the traditional forms
in the customary way, followed by new canons of taste and the consequent introduc-
tion of new elements of decoration executed in a noticeably bolder manner (Cheng-te
and early Chia-ching), again followed by an apparently insatiable appetite for variety
of decorative combinations as the demands of the court and the newborn export trade
called for vast quantities of porcelain quickly, boldly, and often coarsely decorated
(later Chia-ching and some of Wan-li), and finally the first glimmerings of a newly
developing sense of refinement in both taste and technical abiUty that sometime in
Wan-li heralded the coming of the great masterpieces of the Ch'ing Dynasty. Over-
simplified though this may seem and difiicult as would be the task of accounting for
every piece of sixteenth-century blue-and-white in these terms, the hundreds of known
pieces from this period when seen as a whole support the general features of an out-
line stated in these terms.
To return, in summary, to the beginning, the outline may be restated and further
condensed to provide a synoptic view of the whole development of pre-Ch'ing blue-
and-white as it is known today. In the middle of the fourteenth century stands a group
of wares whose antecedents are still unknown. Powerfully constructed and boldly
decorated in broad areas of rich briUiant blues, they reveal a taste for closely knit
vigorous designs in which is a curious combination of almost complete disorder with
a sense of geometrical planning. Whether a chronological relationship exists between
the two is not clear, but there is a hint that this may be the case in the wares of the next
well-defined period which includes the Yung-lo and Hsiian-te reigns of the early fif-
teenth century. Some time about the turn of the century, soon before or after the year
1400, the technique of the potter underwent a change which yielded wares of much
greater refinement; many pieces were thinner and more delicate than their predeces-
sors, but even the thick heavy dishes, bowls, and vases which continued in demand
were more elegantly conceived and more precisely finished. And the decoration
changed in keeping with the evident change in taste. Now the designs were drawn
with thinner strokes and more sparingly disposed over the surfaces so that the white
porcelain ground was more in evidence, and if they may be charged with a faUing off
in vigor, which in any case was sHght, the decorators more than made up for this short-
coming with an increased skill and delicacy of drawing which matched the newfound
142 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
refinement of the porcelains themselves. The word refinement has perhaps been used
too much, but it cannot be overemphasized that therein Hes the key to the age; and
complementing the remarkable development of this quality in the manual skill of both
potter and painter was an equal advance in the conception of the design as a decorative
covering for the porcelain. All trace of disorder vanished, and orderly disposition of
the elements of the design over the surface of the pot is the characteristic most striking
to the eye and most permanent in its effect on the future history of the art. For in the
many varieties of blue-and-white that were to follow, whether fine or coarse, over-
decorated or under, vigorous or weak, the designs always reveal the fundamental sense
of order that stems from the taste of this time. Whatever may have happened in the
three decades of the "Interregnum," the wares of Ch'eng-hua show no evidence of de-
cline but rather an intensification of the feeling for nicety of finish and refinement of
painting that made them the most sensitive and delicate of all Ming blue-and-white. As
has been said before, this was a point beyond which these qualities could hardly be ex-
pected to advance, and the reaction was inevitable. Conventional though nonetheless
accomplished copying of the familiar motifs in the usual style carried into the sixteenth
century when, as we have seen, the introduction of new elements in the design, the haste
and often coarseness of execution under pressure of the relentless demand for quantity,
led to a low point in taste as in technique. But as the century drew to a close attention
was focused on the improvement of certain types of drawing which were again to reach
the heights of sophistication. Curiously enough, it was not among the standard Wan-li
wares with their traditional repertory of dragon, phoenix, lotus, prunus, pine, bamboo,
and all the rest that this new movement took root; the heavy and uninspired drawing
on these wares produced for domestic consumption grew duller and duller until it seems
to have expired of sheer inertia. Side by side with this moribund art, however, was the
new style begun perhaps in part to meet the requirements of the maritime trade; dull
in itself to begin with, it contained in its sketchy fine line and wash drawing the seeds
of the future splendor of blue-and-white, and even before the end of Wan-li there was
ample evidence that something new and wonderful lay ahead. At that very moment
Shah 'Abbas completed his collection and placed it in the Shrine, and so we must look
elsewhere to see what happened; all the signs were there, but so far as Ardebil by the
Caspian was concerned the brilliant future to which they pointed, the wares of Shun-
chih and K'ang-hsi, lay over the horizon.
THE WHITE WARES
Second to the blue-and-white in numbers and most nearly related to them in
interest are the white porcelains some of which are decorated with patterns incised in
the paste or drawn in slip under the glaze and some of which are entirely plain. Among
the latter are four dishes which are unusual in that they show traces of having been
decorated with gilt designs over the glaze. In all cases, however, standards of connois-
seurship for this group are the same as those to be used in considering the material and
structural aspects of the blue-and-white; and in the white wares remaining at Ardebil
the paste, the forms, and the details of the potting conform with those we have already
found to be characteristic of the several Ming reigns; and incised decoration, when it
occurs, also follows the patterns drawn in blue. For that reason it has not seemed
necessary to illustrate more than a few typical examples which will serve to point out
the obvious similarities between the two groups.
No one has yet ventured to point out a plain white version of any of the large mid-
fourteenth-century wares now generally recognized in blue-and-white, nor do the re-
mains of the Ardebil Collection offer anything that might possibly fill that gap. As has
been shown, the physical characteristics of the period are such that a white piece of
contemporary date should not be difficult to recognize; and if the fourteenth-century
decorator had ever tried out his repertory in incised lines, the task should be even
easier. On the other hand, the fact that the application of that repertory was carried
out in such a purely painterly style in blue makes it seem likely that it may never have
occurred to the decorator to try anything other than the brush. This does not mean, of
course, that incised and slip designs were not known for both had flourished mightily
in the Sung Dynasty white wares, the Ting, and the Ch'ing-pai; and both are found on
the lesser wares of the fourteenth century such as stem cups and small bowls. So far,
however, they have not been seen on the great dishes, bowls, and vases of the last Yiian
reign, and the white wares we are about to consider begin in the early fifteenth century.
Large dishes again dominate the scene numerically, and the three standard types
are represented: those with plain rims, those with flattened rims, and those with foliate
rims with the cavettoes molded to match. In all cases the paste, the foot rims, and the
potting parallel those details as we know them on the blue-and-white. The glaze is
almost uniformly colorless, though in some cases a slightly bluish cast is evident, but
no doubt this seems more striking in the absence of blue decoration, and there seems
to be no reason to regard it as anything more than an accident in firing resulting from
minor variations in the quality of the ingredients.
Under the thick and often uneven glaze the incised decorations, as well as those in
143
144 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
slip, are difficult to make out, and when reproduced in photographs all but the clearest
are impossible to see. No. 29.687 (pi. 110) bears the lotus bouquet as seen in blue-
and-white in such great numbers in this same collection and no. 29.678 on the same
plate is one of two dishes decorated with large 5 -clawed dragons drawn in the typical
early fifteenth-century style.''' Both are plain-rimmed dishes of the kind most often
found with these decorations in blue-and-white where the dragons are reserved in white
on a ground of blue waves.
No. 29.694 (pi. Ill) is the best remaining example of those dishes which show
traces of overglaze decoration in gold; and while a fair amount of the gilding has sur-
vived, the over-all impression is rather confused, and it is difficult to reconstruct the
entire pattern. On the flaring rim is a broad and well-drawn scroll pattern not unUke
the classic scroll on 29.68 (pi. 32) but with more fully developed leaf forms. The
cavetto is rather jumbled, but traces of fungus sprays may tentatively be singled out;
and the center pattern seems lost beyond recall.""* Outside the cavetto a chrysanthe-
mum scroll with 1 1 blossoms is the best preserved of all. Among all the early fifteenth-
century porcelains now known, these seem to be the only ones with gilded decora-
tion,'"' and inasmuch as the technique is one that involves a second firing, the question
naturally arises as to whether this is contemporary or a later addition. The whole prob-
lem is so new that it is too soon to draw any conclusion, but those parts of the design
that remain clear enough to be seen do not contradict anything we now know about
early fifteenth-century decoration; and pending more information and more examples
there seems no reason not to accept them. Another dish of similar form has incised
fungus scrolls on the rim, floral scrolls in the cavetto and floral sprays and scrolls in
the center, all rather difficult to see clearly (29.697, pi. 1 12) ; and 29.679 on the same
plate has a flattened foHate rim and molded cavetto in the style well known from the
blue-and-white group (e.g., 29.58, pi. 38), but there seems to be no decoration at all.
The white bowls again reflect wefl-known blue-and-white types. The lien-tzu
shape of 29.717 (pi. 113) is a superb example with the lotus design deUcately exe-
cuted on the outside in incised fines beneath a narrow band of classic scroll. The
Cf. plates 30-31.
The dish illustrated is not in the Ardebil Collection, but a piece with identical decoration in
the writer's possession photographed at the Freer Gallery of Art by infrared Ught in order to bring
out the hidden design more clearly. FaciUties for this type of photography, which is indispensable
to the thorough study of this group of wares, were unfortunately not available in Tehran.
-^^ No blue dragons on large white dishes of this period have yet been seen; cf. p. 96 above.
Either ultraviolet or infrared light might make it possible to reconstruct these designs more
fully. The condition of the cavetto makes one wonder if this dish may not have been gilded more
than once.
A large white Chia-ching bowl on the New York market is decorated with gold phoenixes
among clouds, and the use of gilding in the sixteenth century is well attested by abundant wares of
the kinrande group.
THE WHITE WARES
145
double tier of slender petals is less common though not unknown"'*'; and the sUghtly
dotted effect of the outUnes seen in the photograph is accidental. The glaze has run
thick in the incised areas, bubbles have formed there, and some of them have burst in
the firing; accumulated dirt in the resulting pits accounts for the appearance of the
occasional dots along the Unes. The pair to this bowl is decorated with a plain gold
band about three-eights of an inch wide applied around the outside of the rim. Al-
though this immediately calls to mind the famous porcelains in Istanbul ornamented
with gold and jewels,'" the rather crude workmanship of the band on this white bowl
and the fact that the metal surface is entirely undecorated make any connection be-
tween the two seem unlikely; and there is still no certainty about where that fine jewel-
ing was done. Had it been the habit of the Persians to embelUsh their Chinese porce-
lains in that way, one would have expected to find some examples in the Ardebil Col-
lection, but none remain, and there is no indication in the original list that any such
wares were included in the vaqf. It has been customary to think in terms of Iran or
India or Turkey as the source of this style, but there is no real reason why it could not
have been done in China itself. Although no such porcelains seem to be known from
that source, the same work was used in decorating the set of gold objects reported to
have come from the tomb of a fifteenth-century emperor''^; and a painting in the
Palace Museum in Peking illustrates a bowl and a ewer studded with jewels. It is not
clear whether porcelain or metal vessels are intended in this representation, but in
either case there is evidence enough that decoration in this manner appealed to at least
one segment of the Chinese taste.
No. 29.716 (pi. 113) has the deep sides and plain rim of the well-known type
represented by 29.340 (pi. 49), and the incised design of a single chrysanthemum
spray inside and four fruit sprays above a row of naturaUstic lotus petals dupUcates the
pattern seen in blue-and-white. The same shape on a larger scale is seen in the case of
29.774 (pi. 114) which parallels 29.335 (pi. 49), a bowl of only slightly smaller
size.'"" The incised floral decoration and the general quality of the white bowl are in-
ferior to those in the blue-and-white, but there seems no reason to distinguish between
them so far as date is concerned. In the case of 29.702 (pi. 113) the form is noncom-
mittal, and with no decoration of any kind to serve as a guide the matter of dating is
more difficult, but it may well be a fifteenth-century piece.
The white group also includes two ewers of the usual early fifteenth-century type
296 PMA 55; and Brankston, Early Ming wares, plate 13b. Both are marked Hsiian-te.
Cf. Zimmermann, Altchinesische Porzellane im Alien Serai, plate 70; and Pope, Fourteenth-
century blue-and-white, p. 22.
Cf. Sotheby and Co., Sale catalogue of the Eumorfopoulos Collection, May 28-31, 1940,
lots 509-515.
2^*Cf. Ku-kung-shu-kua-chi no. 34, p. 3. The painting is published as Sung
but does not look that early; it may be seventeenth century.
300 PMA 33 is almost exactly the same size (13i inches) but finer in quahty.
146 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
and one of the less usual seng-mao-hu type, but all are in poor condition. No. 29.722
(pi. 115) is one of five vases of mei-p'ing shape with incised fruit sprays and floral
scrolls; all are very thinly potted and have unglazed bases with low flat rims. They
parallel in every respect their counterparts among the blue-and-white mei-p'ing of the
early fifteenth century (e.g., pi. 51), and there is no reason to date them otherwise.^"*
The earliest properly dated porcelain in the Ardebil Collection is the dish 29.657
(pi. 115) with the 6-character nien-hao of Ch'eng-hua in underglaze blue on the base.
Lacking decoration of any kind it is potted with all the delicacy and finesse of the
period; the deep foot tapers to a narrow, finely finished rim, and the smoothly glazed
base is shghtly convex. As if in keeping with the extraordinary quahty of this dish, the
lapidary has incised the dedicatory inscription of Shah 'Abbas with unusual precision
and clarity, and the curious unidentified owner's mark can be seen incised on the base
near the nien-hao. This piece introduces a group of 16 dishes of about the same size,
all finely potted and with glazed bases; nine are unmarked, and in addition to this
Ch'eng-hua piece, five are marked Hung-chih and one has the Cheng-te nien-hao. The
seven marked pieces all share the exceptionally well-cut Shah 'Abbas mark, and the
group as a whole is of particular interest because of the great similarity of the dishes
over a period of at least two and perhaps three or more decades; each one, when looked
at alone, seems entirely right for the period of its mark, yet were it unmarked it would
be most difficult to know which nien-hao to choose for it; and even with properly iden-
tified pieces of all three reigns right at hand, it is no easy matter to allot the nine
unmarked pieces to their proper groups.
No. 29.714 (pi. 114) is one of three identical undecorated bowls which carry the
Hung-chih nien-hao; and but for this mark it would be impossible to say whether they
were Ch'eng-hua or Hung-chih or indeed even Cheng-te in date. In size, shape, and
quaUty they are comparable to those mentioned in connection with the question of the
so-called "Palace Bowls." The example of these plain white wares with their identi-
fying nien-hao lends support to the cautious attitude that was adopted in respect to the
blue-and-white grouped in the late fifteenth century; tempting as it might be to say such
and such an unmarked piece is surely Ch'eng-hua, the lesson of these white dishes and
bowls should remind us that our connoisseurship simply does not go that far. A
marked Hung-chih bowl in Isfahan, similar to this 29.714, has incised on the side of
the foot in extremely fine script the words Shah Jahdngir Shah Akbar.^"* This mark,
in addition to the dedicatory phrase of Shah 'Abbas, suggests that the latter received
the bowl as a gift from the Mughal Emperor Jahanglr.
Brankston, op. cit., plate 2.
In his article in TOCS, 25 (1949-1950) : 13-19, the late Dr. Bahrami was in error when he
described one of these mei-p'ing (his pi. 2a) as having a Hung-chih mark. None of this group is
Marked, and all are early fifteenth century.
Cf. pp. 109-112 above, and plates 62-64.
See pp. 56-57 above.
THE WHITE WARES
147
These notes on the white wares may be brought to a close with the mention of
three more pieces. A large bowl incised with flying horses among clouds (29.772, pi.
114) bears the characters fu-kuei-chia-ch'i in underglaze blue on the base, and this
together with the deep undercutting of the foot rim indicates a middle or late sixteenth-
century date perhaps in the Chia-ching reign, a period entirely appropriate to the style
of the decoration and the mediocre quality of the bowl; and a fragmentary bowl of
smaller size, decorated with incised floral designs inside and out, is of interest as the
only white piece marked with the nien-hao of Wan-li (29.704, not illustrated). No.
29.773 (pi. 115) is a small vase of kuan shape with unglazed base and no decoration.
Although there is very little to go by, the shape of the piece and the indifferent quality
again suggest an attribution to the sixteenth century.
THE POLYCHROME WARES
Among the wares decorated with overglaze enamels the earUest dish is probably
29.768, which bears the Ch'eng-hua mark in six characters written in underglaze blue
on the base. Well potted and with gently flaring rim, it is plain inside and decorated
outside with fishes and aquatic plants in dark blue under a soUd turquoise glaze. This
unusual piece is almost exactly duplicated by 29.769 (pi. 116), which differs only in
that it is one quarter of an inch larger and carries the 4-character mark of Cheng-te.
No. 29.761 on the same plate is one of a damaged pair of dishes with Hung-chih
marks decorated on the inside with two lions and a circular design (the usual brocaded
ball?) amid streamers, and outside with birds on fruiting and flowering branches, fly-
ing birds, and dragonflies. The enamels are red, yellow, and green, and the drawing is
in the usual blackish-brown Hne. Very similar in style and quality is 29.763 (pi. 117),
which is unmarked; the decoration shows bamboos, a styHzed rock, a peach tree, and
butterflies on the inside with the same motif adjusted to the narrow space and twice
repeated outside. Without the evidence supplied by 29.761 it might be tempting to
consider this dish Ch'eng-hua on the grounds of its quahty, and it may possibly date
from that period, but it seems Ukely that, whatever its proper reign name may have
been, not more than a few years can separate it from the Hung-chih piece. The lesson
has already been learned from the white wares above. Two bowls with flaring rims
are also marked Hung-chih in six characters (29.756, 29.765, not illustrated),'"' and
although somewhat damaged are of good quality and decorated outside with two
pai-ts'e in a landscape in turquoise, red, yellow, and green enamels; inside is a flower
spray in red, yellow, and green.
The 6-character Cheng-te mark ^"^ appears on 29.764 (pi. 117), and beside it is
carved the unidentified owner's mark; inside the bowl is a ch'i-lin with flames and aus-
picious objects, and outside are a ch'i-lin, an elephant, a pai-ts'e, and a Hon, each ca-
parisoned and carrying on its back a red disk on which is written the character ju
"happiness" in gold. The foot is finely made, deep, tapering, undercut, and smoothly
finished at the rim.
Two dishes decorated with one red fish inside and four red fishes outside (29.753
and 755, not illustrated) are probably of the same period, not far from the year 1500;
the bases are well made and glazed but carry no marks.
Cf. TOCS, 25: plate 3c.
^"•^ Cheng-te marks as a class present a number of problems which have been outlined by Sir
Harry Gamer [TOCS, 27 (1951-1953): 66-67]. The 6-character mark on this bowl and the 4-
character mark on the dish described above (29.769, pi. 116) are both very well written, perhaps
even by the same hand, both are on pieces of excellent quality, and both employ the less usual form
of the character nien ^. Calligraphically this form of nien is archaistic but entirely acceptable.
One possible explanation is that it may simply reflect the personal style of one man who was writing
nien-hao in Cheng-te times.
149
150 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Nos. 29.757 and 29.759 (the latter illustrated on pi. 118) are rather crudely
decorated in overglaze enamels of red, yellow, and green, one showing a landscape
with figures (a legendary scene?) , and the other showing lions among scrolling flowers;
but in spite of their indifferent quaUty, they are of special interest because of their
marks. Crudely incised in the paste under the glaze on both dishes is the 6-character
mark of the Chia-ching period, and over this, in a different orientation, is written
Hsuan-te-nien-tsao within a double circle in iron red over the glaze.^" It seems obvious
that someone wanted to enhance the prestige of these sixteenth-century dishes by
superimposing the nien-hao of one of the great early fifteenth-century reigns; but the
motive for this is by no means clear, and a number of interesting questions are raised.
Why, when the Chia-ching mark was incised in six characters ending with the verb
chih, did the next man use the less formal 4-character nien-hao with the verb tsaol
Were the Hsiian-te marks added at the same time the enamel decoration was applied
or later? If later, how much later, and if at the same time, were both done as soon as
the dishes were made? Or if both were added later, was this done during the Chia-ching
reign or in that of Lung-ch'ing, or in Wan-H? In view of the incised Chia-ching marks
and the terminal date of the Ardebil Collection, any tampering with the original dishes
must have taken place within 89 years, and the definite hmitation of time tends to
make the questions even more intriguing, but the answers may prove elusive for some
time to come.
Also from the sixteenth century is a large bowl crudely decorated in red and green
enamels and gold (29.770, not illustrated) ; this inferior porcelain is marked in under-
glaze blue with the characters fii-kuei-chia-ch'i in a rectangle on the base, a mark of
commendation usually associated with the Chia-ching reign.
No. 29.758 (pi. 118) is decorated in a most unusual way in that it shows, on the
outside, four fishes in underglaze red drawn in white spaces reserved in a sea of under-
glaze blue waves; and the curly white areas representing the foaming crests of the
waves are all filled in with iron red over the glaze. A band of the latter red also sur-
rounds the lower part of the bowl. Inside is a central medallion with a similar under-
glaze red fish surrounded by blue waves trimmed with iron red as on the outside. The
inner sides of the bowl are decorated with aquatic plants in colored enamels. Under
the base is a poorly written 6-character Hsiian-te mark in the style usually associated
with late sixteenth-century copies; and this date, perhaps Wan-li, is confirmed by the
deep, slightly undercut foot.
A bowl with flaring rim and marked with the 6-character Ch'eng-hua nien-hao
(29.766, not illustrated) is decorated with a landscape and figures in the typical Wan-li
5-color style. From the same period are three bowls with flaring rims and a dish, all in
the same colors and properly marked with the Wan-li nien-hao in six characters. The
bowls are additionally decorated with four red enamel fishes inside each.
Cf. TOCS, 25: plate 3a.
THE MONOCHROME WARES
Sixteen monochrome yellow wares represent the usual types of bowls and dishes
from the reigns of Hung-chih, Cheng-te, Chia-ching, and Wan-li. All but one are
marked, and this is a dish with foliate rim and the sides molded in the shape of lotus
panels; on the poorly glazed gravelly base is a fruit spray mark in underglaze blue. The
piece resembles the poorest kraakporselein in quality and is no doubt late sixteenth
century. The Chia-ching marks on two dishes are very poorly written and may possibly
be Wan-U copies (29.731-732).
No attempt was made to assign dates to a bowl and a dish with coffee-brown
glazes and no marks (29.743-744, not illustrated).
Among the five blue pieces is an unmarked bowl for which any one of several
periods might answer. A bottle with a 5-clawed dragon incised in the paste under the
blue glaze (29.746, not illustrated) is marked Hsuan-te in six characters and may be
assigned to the second half of the sixteenth century; and the same date apphes to two
damaged blue ewers with buff-colored biscuit designs on the sides (29.745, 771, not
illustrated). Most remarkable of the blue wares is 29.747 (pi. 1 19), a large dish with
foUate rim; the glaze is thick dark blue with a slightly mat surface, and in the center
is a great 3-clawed dragon in white slip pursuing a flaming pearl. The scales and all
details of the beast's anatomy are incised in the slip with fine lines; and the three long
thin curving claws on each foot, the narrow snout, and the slender body are all in the
fourteenth-century manner."*® Further confirming this attribution is the base of the
dish where the unglazed surface reveals the type of paste appropriate to the period, and
the inner edge of the strongly made foot curves gently down to the flat central area.
Unusual as it is, this dish does not stand alone. A mei-p'ing from what may have been
the same set is in the Grandidier Collection in Paris (pi. 138, B), and saucer dishes
decorated with related dragons are known.'""
Perhaps the most surprising piece in the whole collection, though certainly not
the most beautiful, is that shown on plate 120. Made of brownish-gray stoneware, it
is modeled in the form of a recumbent cat; on its back rises a cylindrical tube with a
Cf. the dragon on 29.47 (pi. 15) above.
Cf. Jenyns, op. cit., plate 45b. Similar small saucers are in the David Foundation and in the
Victoria and Albert Museum. The latter museum also has the spouted dish decorated in the same
technique with a flying goose on the inside and floral sprays outside that was sold from Mrs. Alfred
Clark's collection (Sotheby and Co., 24 March 1953, no. 68); the same dish was no. 1486 in the
Chinese Exhibition at Burlington House, 1935-1936, where it was called "16th century." A bottle-
shaped vase with a dragon like those on our plate and on the Grandidier mei-p'ing is shown on folio
42 of the British Museum Khwaju Kirmani Ms. It is reproduced in TOCS (1934-1935) : plate 7.
151
152 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
squared flange at the top and bottom; inside the hollow head is a small spout for
pouring which can be seen through the empty eyes and again where it emerges from
the half-open mouth supported between the upper teeth and the curled-up tip of the
tongue. A thick streaky glaze of watermelon green covers all but the base, and there it
has just run over the edges. On the right shoulder is the vaqfnameh of Shah 'Abbas.
Evidently this is a pouring vessel of some sort and may in a general way be related
to the kendi form; but animals used as the bodies of kendi are stiff and formal, whereas
this one is shown in a relaxed and UfeUke feline pose that is strikingly realistic. Noth-
ing similar seems to have been noticed, and lack of comparative material makes the
dating of such an apparently unique piece extremely difficult; in this case the Shah
'Abbas mark happily provides a terminus post quern non, but how long before 1611 it
may have been made is anybody's guess.
THE CELADONS
Coming as they do from a different group of kilns some 150 miles southeast of the
northern Kiangsi area which produced most of the white porcelains, both plain and
decorated, the celadons present a separate set of problems; but at the same time it will
be seen that certain relationships exist between the two kinds of wares. An important
factor to be noticed is that the celadons are the survivors of an ancient ceramic tradi-
tion in Chekiang, one that goes back to the Yiieh wares of the Han Dynasty and con-
tinues without interruption through T'ang and Sung in the production of fine gray por-
celaneous stonewares covered with high-fired felspathic glazes tinted various shades of
green by the inclusion of ferrous oxides in the mixture. At what stage in history the
body material became vitreous is not clear, but it seems to have been so by Sung times
if not earlier, and from then on it is entirely proper to call it porcelain, as did the
Chinese, regardless of the presence or absence of such western criteria as translucency
and pure whiteness. Thus by the time the blue-and-white wares came on the scene
ultimately to supersede the celadons in popularity both domestically and as articles of
international trade, these handsome and venerable gray-green wares already enjoyed
a seniority of some 13 centuries or more. In the past half century, as the full scope
of Chinese ceramic history has gradually unrolled before our eyes, the Sung celadons
have proved so appeaUng to our taste because of the purity of their forms and the sub-
tlety of their glazes that the word "celadon" has tended to become almost synonymous
with Sung; and there has been an incUnation on the part of many not too deeply versed
in the complexities of the subject to assign all celadons, except of course those made of
white porcelain and bearing Ming and Ch'ing dates, to that period. It was this indis-
criminate and wholesale assignment of all gray-bodied wares with celadon glazes to
that then newly discovered golden age of Chinese ceramics that trapped Zimmermann
into the erroneous attribution of the great celadons in the Topkapu Sarayi for which
he used what he must have considered the cautious designation "Sung or Yiian."
Although a number of large, heavy, gray-bodied celadons are known bearing
dates in the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, they have not
yet been brought to bear on the problems they might help to solve, and a full-scale
reappraisal of these wares should be undertaken. This is no easy matter, for it will re-
quire a careful comparative study of all the dated pieces that can be found; and the
rest of the known wares, including the 1,300 or more in Istanbul must then be reex-
amined in the light of this study and of such other evidence as may be available. At the
present time the ground has not yet been prepared for such a task, and it would in any
Cf. Zimmermann, op. cit., plates 3-21.
153
154 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
case be far beyond the scope of the present volume; but inasmuch as the 50-odd cela-
dons in the Ardebil Collection may be considered members of the same family as those
in the Topkapu Sarayi, the examination of these may be of interest as suggesting cer-
tain future Unes of investigation and hinting at possible solutions to some of the
problems.
As has already been noted, more than 20 of the pieces without dedicatory inscrip-
tions are found among the celadons, and as these are not part of the original gift to the
shrine they need not occupy us for long. It is interesting, however, to find that this un-
marked group includes the only pieces that may possibly have any claims to Sung
origins. One is a small bowl with glossy olive-green glaze and a small foot showing
brownish-gray clay partially tinged with iron red, the ware known as northern cela-
don.^" Two small dishes with flaring rims and fine glaze of kinuta type may also be
Sung; one has a fluted cavetto, the other has two fishes in relief on the inside and a
fluted exterior.'" Although all three are of decent quahty, there is nothing remarkable
about them to make them worthy of inclusion in our illustrations.
More than half the celadons are large dishes, and the sudden popularity of this
new form in Yiian times has already been alluded to in connection with the fourteenth-
century blue-and-white "'; but it is impossible to say at this time just what lay behind
that development or to outhne the steps by which it took place. In any case docu-
mented pieces of Sung date are rare. Two large dishes in the David Collection are
marked Ta-Sung-nien-tsao -h^^^m. and Yilan-yu-nien-tsao 7Cl6^-ia, respectively,
under the glaze on their bases; the former, in incised characters, refers to the whole
dynasty, and the latter, in relief characters, is the nien-hao of the Sung reign that cov-
ered the years 1086-1094.'" Both are unlike any other known Sung wares in shape,
size, and decoration, while in physical properties they have certain points in common
with some of the large celadons in the Near East. And the latter, as we shall see, have
demonstrable aflanities with the blue-and-white wares of the fourteenth and early fif-
teenth centuries.
The great dishes which bear the mark of Shah 'Abbas have large, low, strongly
^" No. 29.597; h. II inches (4.5 cm.); d. 41 inches (11 cm.). Certain recent writers have
begun to classify all northern celadon as Ju ware, a practice which I consider misleading and
unjustified. Ju was a particular ware made in small quantity over a short period of time and held
in the highest esteem by connoisseurs; northern celadon, for all that some fine pieces are known, is
a common utiUtarian ware of which there is a great abundance. The fact that some of it may have
been made at Ju-chou is irrelevant; most Chinese pottery centers produced several kinds of wares,
and it has not heretofore been customary for that reason to confuse the issue by caUing them all the
same thing.
"2Nos. 29.598-599; h. 11 inches (4.5 cm.); d. 5i inches (13.5 cm.).
Cf. p. 61 above.
"*Cf. Hobson, David Catalogue, plates 47 and 48. The diameters are 14.8 inches and 18.9
inches, respectively. On p. xvii of the text he notes that the latter does not convince everybody.
THE CELADONS
155
made foot rings with rounded rims completely glazed over, and on the glazed base is
a ring of exposed biscuit which has in most cases burned red in the firing this fea-
ture appears on the two dated pieces just described/'*"
The decoration was carried out for the most part by means of designs incised or
carved in the soft clay, and the several ways in which the cutting tools could be used
produced a variety of results. By holding his point vertically the decorator could draw
a narrow line, and by leaning it more or less to one side or the other he achieved vary-
ing widths as the design required. While this was always a more cumbersome technique
than painting, a considerable degree of modulation was available to the skillful hand
as can be observed in the designs on 29.617 and 29.619 (pi. 121 ). On the former he
has confined himself to a single bold and freely drawn lotus dominating the whole
center of the dish, and on the latter separate zones of decoration are conceived to
cover the rim, the cavetto, and the center, respectively, just as was done in the blue-
and-white. The most delicate and sensitive example of this drawing is that on 29.621
(pi. 122) where a single tree peony decorates the center of the dish. From the broad
soft strokes at the points of the leaves to the fine sharp fines of the veins a wide range
of possibifities in this technique has been utilized in a very simple sketch. Aside from
this and a running scroll on the rim, there is no decoration. Not only in the drawing,
however, is this piece remarkable; from the standpoint of quality it is unsurpassed. The
fine-grained very fight gray, indeed almost white, clay has been flawlessly potted, and
where it shows in the unglazed ring on the base it is almost untinged by iron red; this
ring itself is remarkable for its prefect delineation when compared with the messy un-
even rings on other wares of the type. Aside from this band of pale gray biscuit the
dish is covered in a rich even sea-green glaze with an unimpaired glossy surface. In
every way it is a triumph of the potter's art. On 29.630 and 29.631 (pi. 123) the
flowing waves and floral patterns of the two cavettoes surround central areas tightly
covered with interlocking lozenges based on diamond patterns and squares, respec-
tively. These latter, which thanks to the relief caused by the deeply cut lines make the
center of the dish resemble a waffle, may be related in spirit to some of the diamond
and interlocking cash-shaped diaper patterns of the fourteenth-century blue-and-
white. The "waffle" pattern again covers the center of 29.626 (pi. 123), but here the
cavetto is executed in a different technique by which the background is afi cut away
leaving the floral scrolls to stand out in relief.
They are sometimes known as the "red ring base" type.
Among the celadons which lack the dedicatory inscription are seven dishes 13-14 inches in
diameter which are treated in the opposite way: the foot rims are unglazed and the bases solidly
covered. Although the feet on these latter are smaller in proportion to the size of the dishes, cut more
deeply on the inside, and thicker and more sloping on the outside (pi. 124), the two groups are
otherwise much the same in character, quality, type of decoration, and general proportions. It is
not clear if the difference in the bases implies a distinction in date or place of origin or either. At
the moment I am inclined to think it need not.
156 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Although none of these celadon dishes from Ardebil provides a direct parallel with
the blue-and-white wares insofar as the decoration alone is concerned, there are two
members of the same family in the Topkapu Sarayi which are so strikingly similar to
blue-and-white dishes from Ardebil that they cannot be overlooked in this discussion.
The grape design with curiously pointed leaves on one of the Istanbul dishes is
duphcated almost exactly on 29.60 (pi. 39) ; and the large htchi dish ''^ has its counter-
part in 29.63 (pi. 41) even to the separate flower sprays in the 16 molded sections of
the cavetto which correspond to the foUations on the rim. These two are altogether
remarkable, and even in the absence of such detailed duplication it will be seen that a
number of other dishes in the Sarayi Collection are decorated in a spirit closely akin
to that which inspired the painters of the blue-and-white."®
Aside from the large dishes, certain other celadons provide interesting compar-
ative material. The bowl 29.646 (pi. 125) has a single floral spray incised in the bot-
tom and is otherwise undecorated; and the glazed foot rim and red ring base relate it
to the large dishes. It is heavily potted, and although the foot is somewhat different in
profile the over-aU proportions are those of 29.320 (pi. 24), which has been pointed
out as a new shape heralding the advent of the typical Ming bowl. The tripod (29.655,
pi. 125) is cyUndrical in form and rests on three short legs, one of which has been
broken off, showing that it was only Ughtly luted to the body. Around the surface are
peony scrolls in rehef; the stems were left in reUef by cutting away the clay on either
side, and the leaves and blossoms look as though they had been molded in separate
pieces of clay and then appUed to the surface at the appropriate points. The curious
structure of the double bottom is shown on plate 142; in both this case and that of the
baluster vase 29.648 (pi. 129) there is no opening in the inner bottom, and the func-
tion of the lower bottom with its central perforation is not clear.
No. 29.647 (pi. 126) is unfortunately fragmentary; but the curious shallow bowl
contracted just below the Up strongly suggests the upper part of the blue-and-white
stem bowl at Oxford,^"* and the small smoothly cut remnant of a base may well have
been the top of such a flaring stem. The style of the boldly incised lotus panels and the
abstract leaves and round dots within them are also worthy of close examination. Two
more bowls are of interest for their own intrinsic qualities rather more than as examples
of a particular trend in style. No. 29.649 (pi. 127) is beautifully incised with lotus
scrolls on the outside and a pattern of interlacing waves on the inside; and in the
center another technique has been employed where a single floral spray in low rehef
Cf. Zimmermann, op. cit., plate 10, where the dish is incorrectly oriented; the grapes should
be pendent.
Op. cit., plate 12.
Op. cit., plates 11, 13, 14, 15. The central area of the latter is remmiscent of such four-
teenth-century designs as that on our 29.40, plate 8, although the dish itself anticipates a later form.
Cf. the shape of PMA 20 and the discussion of the late fourteenth-century types on pp. 78-79
above.
Cf. OCS Catalogue, 1953, no. 18, Gamer, Oriental blue and white, plate 9.
THE CELADONS
157
appears to have been impressed in the clay with an intaglio stamp. The other bowl,
29.651 (pi. 128), is plain and owes its beauty to the unusual shape, fluted sides, and
foliate rim; in the center a lotiform medallion stands in sharp relief and also appears
to have been stamped in a mold, perhaps, in this case, as a separate piece of clay
pressed into the bottom of the bowl. The foot is very small in proportion to the over-all
diameter, the unglazed rim is iron red, and there is a recessed circular hole in the cen-
ter. This latter might possibly penetrate the base of the bowl proper and only be cov-
ered by the clay of the lotus medallion applied to the inside.
A small baluster vase with horizontally fluted neck of flaring trumpet shape is so
well proportioned that it could be mistaken in the photograph for one of its larger
counterparts. Simple incised lotus scrolls adorn the body above a row of slender petals
carved in low relief (29.648, pi. 129). The piece has a double base, and the bottom
surfaces of both levels are glazed as may be seen through the central perforation in the
lower one; and glaze even covers the inner edge of this hole. Much of the base is
covered with gritty adhesions and deposits of reddish clay; the foot rim is unglazed and
fired to an iron red. A bottle-shaped vase of the type called yii-hu-ch'un-p'ing is, sur-
prisingly enough, somewhat taller than the preceding piece (29.652, pi. 129). The
decoration is difficult to make out in the photograph; but on close examination is seen
to consist of a row of stiff leaves above a band of diamond diaper pattern on the neck,
and a row of trefoils pendent on the shoulder over the main body design of floral
scrolls. Around the lower part is a row of lotus panels.'''
Two kuan vases are illustrated to complete our descriptions of individual vessels
among the Ardebil celadons. Both 29.650 and 29.654 (pi. 130) are squat in shape,
broader than high, and both have short straight necks sloping slightly inward and sides
curving strongly inward toward bases which are smaller than the tops. In both cases
the bottom has been made by inserting a saucer to cover up the opening. The form of
29.650 is emphasized by deep narrow vertical fluting from the neck to the base making
a vase of exceptional simplicity and beauty ''"; and the decoration of 29.654 consists
of floral scrolls left in bold relief when the background was carved away; a band of
stiff leaves is indicated around the base.
It would be premature to base a final judgment of all celadons in this large heavy
class on the few observations set down here; but pending a more thorough investiga-
tion of the whole subject, certain points may be restated as having possible value for
future study. These wares are evidently products of Chekiang Province, and the clays
and glazes are closely related to those used in that area over many centuries; but aside
For a blue-and-white vessel of this shape decorated with elements of the same repertory (i.e.,
stiff leaves, pendent trefoUs, and lotus panels), cf. PMA 22.
Zimmermann, op. cit., plate 7, is the covered counterpart of this piece. He describes it as
30 cm. high; if this measurement includes the cover, the two pieces must be very nearly identical
in size.
158 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
from those basic physical properties and aside from the technique of decorating by
incising and carving the clay which is known on such Sung wares as Ch'ing-pai, Ting,
Tz'u-chou, and Yiieh, these wares have Uttle in common with any ceramics made in the
Sung Dynasty. In their most striking outward aspects, size and shape, they are new
arrivals on the Chinese ceramic scene. At the same time, it is in these very respects
that they are most closely related to that most important of all ceramic innovations,
white porcelain decorated in blue. Further, as has been shown, there are close paral-
lels between some of the decorative motifs used on the two kinds of wares. Which
came first we cannot now say with assurance, but any priority that one may have en-
joyed over the other must have been slight at best; and for all practical purposes there
seems to be no reason why the two may not be contemporary. It is the blue-and-white
which provides us with such points of reference as are available in respect to chronol-
ogy; and while many questions remain to be answered, there can hardly be any doubt
that the types most closely akin to these celadons are fourteenth- and early fifteenth-
century in date. In the long run, therefore, when the whole field of celadon wares is
subjected to a more critical analysis we may find ourselves forced to abandon any
thought of Sung attributions for the large dishes and the family they represent; the
cautious designation "Sung or Yiian" may also be set aside; and these wares may find
their proper niche in late Yiian and early Ming.
APPENDIX: STATISTICAL NOTES ON THE COLLECTION
The total number of Chinese porcelains remaining in the collection is 805. In
1949 the group was divided and 39 pieces were placed on exhibition in the Chehel
Sottin in Isfahan, and the circumstances of this study were such that these were not
numbered. Of the 774 pieces numbered in Tehran, eight were celadon dishes later
found to be Persian imitations of Chinese types. The 766 properly numbered Chinese
wares plus the 39 unnumbered pieces in Isfahan give the total of 805, and this group is
treated as a whole throughout. Minor differences between the figures given below and
those published in the preliminary note in HJAS, 13 ( 1950) : 559-562 are the result of
further checking of the field notes and the revision of certain attributions as the study
progressed. With the exception of those figures which arbitrarily assign marginal and
uncertain types to definite periods and hence are always subject to revision, the count
is beUeved to be as accurate as it is possible to make it without reviewing the porcelains
themselves.
The types of wares are as follows:
Blue-and-white 618
White 80
Celadon 58
Polychrome 23
Yellow 16
Blue 7
Brown 3
805
THE BLUE-AND-WHITE: TYPES AND PERIODS
14th
E. 15th
L. 15th
16th
Isfahan
Type
cent.
cent.
cent.
cent.
undated
Total
Dishes
24
113
9
166
8
320
Bowls
2
21
11
47
2
83
Kuan
3
3
36
3
45
Mei-p'ing
5
16
4
2
27
Bottles
12
3
1
2
18
Flasks
2
4
4
1
11
Ewers
12
1
11
2
26
Odd covers
70
70
Misc
2
1
11
3
18
37
183
29
346
23
618
159
160 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
OTHER WARES BY TYPES ONLY
Type White
Dishes 46
Bowls 23
Kuan 1
Mei-p'ing 6
Bottles —
Ewers 4
Odd covers —
Misc —
Celadon
33
Polychrome
10
Yellow
6
Blue
2
1
Brown
1
2
THE NON-CHINESE MARKS INCISED OR DRILLED IN THE PASTE OR GLAZE
The vaqfnameh of Shah 'Abbas appears on 774 pieces.
The abbreviated vaqfnameh appears 7 times among the above.
Qarachaghay appears on a total of 94 pieces.
Blue-and-white 92
14th century 3
Early 15 th century 88
Late 15th century 1
White wares with traces of gold decoration 2
Behbud appears on 4 pieces.
Abu Talib appears on 2 pieces.
Narinji appears on 2 pieces.
Qui! (or variants) appears on 12 pieces.
Owners mark appears on 14 pieces.
Blue-and-white 31
White wares lOl
Polychrome wares 1 J
THE CHINESE MARKS IN UNDERGLAZE BLUE
Genuine nien-hao appear on 7 1 pieces.
Blue-and-white 31
14th and 15th centuries none
rCheng-te 1
16th century I Chia-ching 10
[Wan-li 20
( Ch'eng-hua 1
White wares Hung-chih 8
I Cheng-te 1
Wan-li 1
All are Ch'eng-hua,
Hung-chih, or Cheng-te.
STATISTICAL NOTES ON THE COLLECTION
Genuine nien-hao — {continued) .
Polychrome wares
Monochrome wares (
Ch'eng-hua
1
Hung-chih
4
Cheng-te
2
Chia-ching
3
Wan-li
4
Hung-chih
1
Cheng-te
7
Chia-ching
5
Wan-h
2
Apocryphal nien-hao appear on 17 16th-century pieces.
Blue-and-white fHsuan-te 10
[Ch'eng-hua 2
Polychrome wares fHsuan-te 3
[Ch'eng-hua 1
Monochrome wares (blue) Hsiian-te 1
Marks other than nien-hao appear on 20 pieces, all 1 6th century.
Blue-and-white
Ta-ming-nien-tsao .h^^^ys. 2
Fu-kuei-chia-ch'i "Um^^"^ 7
Ch'ang-ming-ju-kuei 2*
Wan-ju-yu-t'ung 1
Te-jen-ch'ang-ch'un ^^.tl^g^ If
Fu-shou-k'ang-ning ^^^^^ 1
FW^^ ' 3
Ching-chih n
White wares
Fu-kuei-chia-ch'i %m.^^ 1
Polychrome wares
Fu-kuei-chia-ch'i "Mm^^ 1
* The Ch'ang-ming-fu-kuei mark is written in a cash-shaped frame on the bases of
two bowls of late sixteenth-century date. Each is decorated inside with a diaper border,
prunus sprays, and a central circle with an eagle perched on a rock; outside are floral
scrolls and medallions. (29.365-6, D. 7i in., 19 cm., not illustrated.)
t The Te-jen-ch'ang-ch'un mark is written in seal characters framed by a square
around which are the four characters Wan-li-nien-tsao also in their seal forms. This
appears on the base of a small dish decorated inside with two fishes and outside with fish
among waterweeds. (29.315, D. 6J in., 17 cm., not illustrated.)
This mark appears in the form shown here on a small ewer
decorated with birds and fruiting branches on the cylindrical
neck, and fish and waterweeds on the body. The first character
is probably ching, the second chih. (29.443, H. 4| in., 12 cm.,
not illustrated.)
162 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Marks not involving characters appear on 7 blue-and-white pieces as follows:
Interlocking lozenges on the bowl 29.345 shown on
plate 63.
Cross in a double circle on the fragmentary base of a
bottle like 29.451 shown on plate 74. (29.454.)
Crude swastika in a double circle on the dish 29.279
shown on plate 90.
Hare on the ewer 29.424 shown on plate 99; on two
of the covers Uke 29.284 shown on plate 108; on the
bottle 29.468 shown on plate 109.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In referring to periodicals the following abbreviations are used:
AA
Axtibus Asiae, Ascona.
ACASA
Archives of the Chinese Art Society of America, New York.
AI
Ars Islamica, Ann Arbor.
AO
Acta Orientalia, Leiden.
AQ
Art Quarterly, Detroit.
BMFEA
Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockhohn.
FECB
Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin, Ann Arbor.
HJAS
Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Cambridge.
JA
Journal Asiatique, Paris.
JMBRAS
Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Singapore.
JNCBRAS
Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Shanghai.
JRGS
Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, London.
JSSS
Journal of the South Seas Society, Singapore.
OA
Oriental Art, London.
TOCS
Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, London.
TP
T'oung Pao, Leiden.
ZDMG
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig.
Aga-Oglu, Kamer. Five examples of Annamese pottery. Bull. Univ. Michigan Mu-
seum of Art, no. 5 (May 1954): 6-11.
. Ming export blue and white jars in the University of Michigan collec-
tion. AQ, 11 (1948): 201-217.
Alexander, Sir James Edward. Travels from India to England . . . in the years
1825-26. London, 1827.
Amiot, Joseph Marie. Memoir es concernant I'histoire, les sciences, les arts, les
moeurs, les usages, c&c. des Chinois, 15 vols. Paris, 1776-1791.
Ayers, John. Early Chinese blue-and-white in the Museum of Eastern Art, Oxford.
OA, 3 (1951):135-141.
Bahr, a. W. Old Chinese porcelain and works of art in China. London, New York,
Cassell&Co., 1911.
Bahrami, Mehdi. Chinese porcelains from Ardabil in the Teheran Museum. TOCS,
25 (1949-1950): 13-19.
Barnham, Denis. A XV century tripod incense burner. OA, I (1948) : 33-36.
Beal, Samuel. Si-yu-ki. Buddhist records of the western world, 2 vols. London,
Trubner&Co., 1884.
163
164 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Bellan, Lucien-Louis. Chah 'Abbas I, sa vie, son histoire. Paris, Paul Geuthner,
1932. {Les grandes figures de V orient, t. 3.)
Bergman, Folke. Travels and archaeological field-work in Mongolia and Sinkiang
— a diary of the years 1927-1934, Stockholm, 1945. (The Sino-Swedish Expedi-
tion, Pubhcation 26, History of the Expedition in Asia 1927-1935, part IV.)
Beveridge, a. S. The Bdbur-ndma in English, 2 vols. London, Luzac & Co., 1922.
Bluett, Edgar E. The Riesco collection of old Chinese pottery and porcelain. Lon-
don, Antique Collector, 1951.
BocKLER, George Andreas. Architectura curiosa nova. Nurnberg, 1664.
Boston Museum of Fine Arts. The Charles B. Hoyt collection; memorial exhibi-
tion. Boston, The Museum, 1952.
Boxer, Charles. Fidalgos in the Far East, 1550-1770; fact and fancy in the history
of Macao. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1948.
Brankston, a. D. Early Ming wares of Chingtechen. Peiping, Henri Vetch, 1938.
Bretschneider, E. Mediaeval researches from eastern Asiatic sources, 2 vols. Lon-
don, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1910.
Browne, Edward G. A literary history of Persia. Vol. 4: Modern times (1500-
1924). Cambridge, The University Press, 1928.
Bruyn, Cornelis de. Travels into Muscovy, Persia and part of the East Indies . . . ,
2 vols. London, 1737.
BusHELL, Stephen W. Oriental ceramic art; collection of W. T. Walters. Text edition
to accompany the complete work. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1 899.
. Tr. Description of Chinese pottery and porcelain, being a translation of
theTaoShuo. . . . Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1910.
Cammann, Schuyler. Chinas dragon robes. New York, Ronald Press Co., 1952.
Ching-hua-chia-shih-shih ^^9^1131, by Li Chun-chih ^M^t, 10 ts'e, 1930.
Ch'ing-pi-tsang i^i^M, by Chang Ying-wen ^M'X, 2 chUan, last preface 1595.
Ching-te-chen t'ao-lu ^i^Mm^, by Lan P'u W^, 10 chuan, 1815.
Chu-fan-chih by Chao Ju-kua tSi^cii, 2 chiian, Southern Sung. Edition in
Han-hai, 1782.
Clavijo, Ruy Gonzalez de. Embassy to Tamerlane, 1403-1406. Tr. by G.
Le Strange. London, Routledge, 1928.
Cleaves, Francis Woodman. The Sino-Mongolian inscription of 1362 in memory
of Prince Hindu. HJAS, 12, 1-2 (June 1949): 1-133.
CoLASANTi, Arduino. Le fontane d' Italia. Rome, 1926.
CooMARASWAMY, Ananda K., and Kershaw, Francis S. A Chinese Buddhist water
vessel and its Indian prototype. AA, 3, No. 2-3 (1928-1929) : 122-141.
David, Armand. Abbe David's diary. Tr. and ed. by Helen M. Fox. Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1949.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
165
David, Sir Percival. Chinese porcelain in Constantinople. TOCS, 1 1 ( 1933-1934) :
15-20.
. Hsiang and his album. TOCS, 11 (1933-1934): 22-47.
. A commentary on Ju ware. TOCS, 14 (1936-1937): 18-69.
. The T'ao Shuo and "the illustrations of pottery manufacture"; a critical
study and a review reviewed. AA, 12 (1949) : 165-182.
. The magic fountain in Chinese ceramic art. BMFEA, 24 (1952) : 1-9.
Du Sartel, Octave. La porcelaine de Chine. Paris, Morel, 1881.
DuYVENDAK, Jan Julius Lodewijk. Ma Euan re-examined. Amsterdam, Noord-
Hollandsche Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1933.
Evans, I. H, N. On the persistence of an old type of water-vessel. JMBRAS, 1 (1923) :
248-250.
Falsafi, Nasrollah. Zindegani-ye Shah 'Abbas. (Life of Shah 'Abbas.) Tehran,
1332 (1*953-1954). (University of Tehran Publ. no. 171.)
FiscHEL, Walter J. Ibn Khaldun and Tamerlane, their historic meeting in Damascus,
1401 A.D. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1952.
Fou-liang hsien-chih Edition of the 21st year of the K'ang-hsi period
(1682).
Franks, A. W. Catalogue of a collection of oriental porcelain and pottery lent for
exhibition by A. W. Franks . . . , 2d ed. London, printed by George E. Eyre
and William Spottiswoode, 1878.
Eraser, James B. Travels and adventures in the Persian provinces on the southern
banks of the Caspian Sea. London, 1826,
FujiTA, Baron. Fujita danshaku kazo hin nyUsatsu mokuroku Sffl Jl^^^no A+L
@ ^ (Auction catalogue of items in the Baron Fujita Collection.) Osaka, 1929.
Garner, Sir Harry. Oriental blue and white. London, Faber & Faber, 1954.
Gray, Basil. The influence of Near Eastern metalwork on Chinese ceramics. TOCS,
18 (1940-1941): 47-60.
. Blue and white vessels in Persian miniatures of the 14th and 15th cen-
turies re-examined. TOCS, 24 (1948-1949): 23-30.
Hambis, Louis. Le chapitre CVIII du Yuan Che. Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1954. (T'oung
pao. Monograph III.)
Han-hai comp. by Li T'iao-yiian ^^tc, 142 items (1782); Supplement M,
11 items (1801); 159 items (1882).
Han Wai-toon. A research on Kendi. JSSS, 7, pt. 1 (no. 13), 1951. (Conventional
romanization of the author's name is Han Wei-chiin.)
Han Wei-chun Jou-fo-ho liu-yu fa-chien yu-kuan-shih chih wo-kuo ts'an-tz'u
m^'nm.mm^^W:M:^^nM^. Dated Chinese pottery shards found in the
valley of the Johore River. China Society of Singapore Annual, 1953, pp. 20-22.
166 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Hannover, Emil. Keramisk haandbog andet binds 1st Halvdel; Kina, Korea, Japan.
K0beiihavn, Henrik Koppels Forlag, 1923.
Herrmann, A. Historical and commercial atlas of China. Cambridge, Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1935.
HiPPiSLEY, Alfred Edward. A catalogue of the Hippisley collection of Chinese por-
celains, with a sketch of ceramic art in China. U. S. National Museum Ann.
Rept., 1888: 387-491. Washington, 1890.
Hirth, F., and Rockhill, W. W., tr. Chau Ju-kua; his work on the Chinese and Arab
trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, entitled Chu-fan-ch'i. St. Petersburg,
Printing OflBce of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1911.
HoBSON, R. L. Chinese pottery and porcelain, 2 vols. London, 1915.
. The wares of the Ming dynasty. New York, C. Scribner's Sons, 1923.
. The George Eumorfopoulos collection . . . pottery and porcelain,
6 vols. London, E.Benn, 1925-1928.
. A catalogue of Chinese pottery and porcelain in the collection of Sir
Percival David. London, Stourton Press, 1934.
HoBSON, R. L., and Hetherington, A. L. The art of the Chinese potter from the Han
dynasty to the end of the Ming. . . . New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1923.
HoBSON, R. L., Rackham, Bernard, and King, William. Chinese ceramics in pri-
vate collections. . . . London, Halton & T. Smith, 1931.
Holmes, William Richard. Sketches on the shores of the Caspian descriptive and
pictorial. London, Richard Bently, 1845.
Honey, William Bowyer. The ceramic art of China and other countries of the Far
East. . . . London, Faber & Faber and the Hyperion Press, 1945.
l-men-kuang-tu ^HMHi comp. by Chou Li-ching M^i^, 106 chUan, last preface
1598.
Ibn Battuta. Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354. Tr. by H. A. R. Gibb. Lon-
don, Routledge, 1928.
Ingholt, Harald. Rapport preliminaire sur la premiere campagne des fouilles de
Hama. K0benhavn, Levin & Munksgaard, 1934.
. Rapport preliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles a Hama en Syrie
(1932-1938). K0benhavn, Enjar Munksgaard, 1940.
Ivanov, a. Bumaznoe Obraztsenie v kitae do XV B. Materialy po Etnografi Rossii,
2 (1914): 159-173.
Jacquemart, Albert, and Le Blant, Edmond. Histoire artistique, industrielle et
commerciale de la porcelaine. Paris, J. Techener, 1862.
Jahangir. The Tuzuk-i-Jahdngm, or. Memoirs of Jahdngir, 2 vols. Tr. by Alexander
Rogers. Edited by Henry Beveridge. London, Royal Asiatic Society, 1909-
1914.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
167
Janse, Olov R. T. Notes on Chinese influences in the Philippines in pre-Spanish
times. HJAS, 8 (1944-1945): 34-62.
Jaubert, Pierre Amedee. Voyage en Armenie et en Perse, fait dans les annees 1805
etl806. Paris, 1821.
Jenkinson, Anthony. Early voyages and travels to Russia and Persia, 2 vols. Lon-
don, Hakluyt Society, 1886.
Jenyns, Soame. Later Chinese porcelain, the Ch'ing Dynasty (1644-1912). London,
Faber&Faber, 1951.
. Ming pottery and porcelain. London, Faber & Faber, 1953.
JuLiEN, Stanislas. Histoire et fabrication de la porcelaine chinoise. Paris, 1856.
Kahle, Paul. Eine islamische Quelle iiber China um 1500. (Das Khitdyname des
'AliEkber.) AO, 12 (1934): 91-110.
. Islamische Quellen zum chinesischen Porzellan. ZDMG, 88 (1934):
1-45.
King, William. A document in Ming porcelain. The Year Book of Oriental Art and
Culture. London, 1924-1925, 31-32.
Ko-ku-yao-lun ^is^m by Ts'ao Chao WHg, 3 chuan, 1387; rev. and enl. by Wang
Tso 13 chiian, 1459, and other editions.
during the Yiian Dynasty in China. Russnoe geograficheskago obschestva, 45
KoTViCH, V. Obraztsy assignatsii luanskoi dinastii v Kitae. Samples of "Assignats"
(1909): 474-477.
KozLOV, p. K, The Mongolia-Sze-Chuan expedition of the Imperial Russian Geo-
graphical Society . Geographical Journal, 34 (Oct. 1909): 384-408.
. Mongolei, Amdo und die tote Stadt Charachoto. Berlin, 1925.
. Mongolia i Amdo i mertvyi gorod Khara-Khoto, 2d ed. Moscow, 1947.
Krenkow, F. The oldest western accounts of Chinese porcelain. Islamic Culture, the
Hyderabad Quarterly Review, 7, 3 (July 1933) : A6A-A1\.
Ku-kung tk"^. Palace Museum Monthly, 43 vols. Peiping, The Palace Museum,
1929-1933.
Ku-kung-shu-hua-chi i^^*fitfe, 45 vols. Peiping, The Palace Museum, 1929-1937.
Kuo-ch'ao-shih-jen-cheng-lueh PlSHAt^^SS- by Chang Wei-p'ing 5SliM, 64 chiian,
1842.
KusHi Takushin ^l^^^M. Shina minsho toji zukan ^Jl^fiSH^. Illustrated
catalogue of early Ming Chinese porcelain. Tokyo, Ho-un sha, 1943.
Lamm, Carl Johan. Mittelalterliche Gldser und Steinschnittarbeiten aus dem Nahen
Osten, 2 vols. Berlin, D. Reimer, 1930.
Laufer, Berthold. Chinese Muhammedan bronzes . . . with a study of the Arabic
inscriptions by Martin Sprengling. AI, 1 (1934): 132-147.
Lee, Jean Gordon. Ming blue-and-white. Philadelphia Mus. Bull., 44, no. 223
( Autumn 1949). ( Abbreviated PM A. )
168 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Lee, Jean Gordon. Some Pre-Ming "blue-and-white" ; a stylistic analysis with sug-
gested chronology. ACASA, 6 (1952): 33-40.
Maggi, Giovanni. Fontane diverse. Roma, 1618.
Malcolm, Sir John. History of Persia from the most early period to the present time,
2 vols. London, 1815.
Merry, Harriet Harrison. Chinese Islam, a study in religious acculturation. M.A.
thesis. University of Michigan (unpublished).
Mo-hsiang-chii hua-shih by Feng Chin-po iW^ffi, 10 chiian (n.d., about
1800).
MoNTEiTH, Colonel. Journal of a tour through Azerbijan and the shores of the
Caspian. JRGS, 3 (1832): 1-56.
Morier, James. A second journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor to Con-
stantinople between the years 1810 and 1816. . . . London, 1818.
MouLE, A. C, and Pelliot, P. Marco Polo the description of the world, 2 vols, (in-
complete). London, Routledge, 1938.
MuHAi DojiN ilWitA. Sentoku seika toka sokin no zu oban M^^^^^MMM
M^. A bowl decorated with the design of peaches and animals. Kokka, 711
(June 1951): 232, plate 7.
MuNSTERBERG, OsKAR. Chinesische Kunstgeschichte, 2 vols. Esslingen a. N., P. Neff,
1924.
Ni-ku-lu Wti^M, by Ch'en Chi-ju WMM, 4 chuan, author d. 1639.
Okuda Seiichi Jsi^iaM— . Sokoroku zukan 'M^Jl^M^. Illustrated catalogue of
Sawankalok. Tokyo, Zayuho Kanko Kai, 1944.
. Annan tdji zukan ^W^^M^. Illustrated catalogue of Annamese
ceramics. Tokyo, Kokusai shoji, 1954.
Olearius, Adam. The voyages and travells of the ambassadors sent by Frederick
Duke of Holstein, to the Great Duke of Muscovy, and the King of Persia begun in
the year MDCXXXIII and finish'd in MDCXXXIX containing a compleat his-
tory of Muscovy, Tartary, Persia and other adjacent countries. . . . London,
1669.
Olschki, Leonardo. Guillaume Boucher, a French artist at the court of the Khans.
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1946.
Oriental Ceramic Society. Catalogue of an exhibition of Chinese blue and white
porcelain, 14th to 19th centuries. London, The Oriental Ceramic Society, 1953.
(Abbreviated OCS Catalogue, 1953.)
Orsoy de Flines, E. W. van. Gids voor de keramische Verzdmeling (Uitheemse
keramiek). Batavia, Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en
Wetenschappen, 1949.
Ottema, Nanne. Chineesche ceramiek, handboek geschreven naar aanleiding van de
verzamelingen in het Museum Het Princessehof te Leeuwarden. . . . Amster-
dam, J. H. de Bussy, 1946.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
169
Palmgren, Nils. / Sung-keramikens spar. Porslin, 1-2. Stockholm, 1951-1952, pp.
6 1-7 1 . (English summary: On the track of Sung ceramics, on p. 97. )
Pelliot, Paul. Le pretendu album de porcelaines de Hiang Yuan-pien. TP, 32
( 1936) : 15-58. [Cf. Review of a review signed John C. Ferguson. JNCBRAS,
67 (1936): 200-204.]
. Le Dr. Ferguson et V album dit de Hiang Yuan-pien. TP, 33 ( 1937) :
. Le Hdja et le Sayyid Husain de I'histoire des Ming. TP, 38 (1948) :
91-94.
81-292.
Pickens, Claude L., Jr. Annotated bibliography of literature on Islam in China.
Hankow, Hupeh, China, Society of Friends of the Moslems in China, 1950.
Po-wu-yao-lan WW^^, by KuT'ai tf/l^, 16 chiian, before 1627.
PONTANUS, J. I. Historische Beschriibinghe der seer wijt beroemde Coop-stadt Am-
sterdam. Amsterdam, 1614.
Pope, Arthur Upham, Editor. A survey of Persian art from prehistoric times to the
present, 6 vols. London and New York, Oxford University Press, 1938-1939.
Pope, John A. Letter from the Near East. HJAS, 13 ( 1950) : 558-564.
. Ming blue-and-white at Philadelphia. OA, 3 (1950): 21-27.
. Some blue-and-white in Istanbid. TOCS, 26 (1950-1951) : 37-49.
. The Princessehof Museum in Leeuwarden. ACASA, 5 ( 1951 ) : 23-37.
. Fourteenth-century blue-and-white: a group of Chinese porcelains in
the Topkapu Sarayi MUzesi, Istanbul. Washington, 1952. (Freer Gallery of Art
Occasional Papers, vol. 2, no. 1.)
, Ming porcelains in the Freer Gallery of Art. Washington, D. C, Smith-
sonian Institution, 1953.
. Blue-and-white in London. FECB, 6, 2 (June 1954), Serial no. 26:
9-14.
PouLSEN, Vagn. Letters — Ming blue-and-white. Burlington Magazine, 90 (May
1948): 150.
QuATREMERE, M. Memoires historiques sur la vie du Sultan Schah-rokh. JA, 3eme
serie,vol. 1 (Sept. 1836): 193-233.
Rabino di Borgomale, H, L. Album of coins, medals, and seals of the Shahs of Iran
(1500-1948). Oxford, The University Press, 1951.
Reidemeister, Leopold. Ming-Porzellane in schwedischen Sammlungen. Berlin and
Leipzig, W. de Gruyter & Co., 1935.
Reitlinger, G., and Button, M. Early Ming blue and white. Burlington Magazine,
90 (January 1948): 10-16; (March 1948): 67-75.
Rice, D. S. Le baptistere de Saint Louis. Paris, Editions du Chene, 1953.
Rieu, Charles. Catalogue of the Persian manuscripts in the British Museum, 3 vols.
London, British Museum, 1879-1883.
170 CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
RiEU, Charles. Supplement to the Catalogue of the Persian manuscripts in the
British Museum. London, British Museum, 1896.
Riviere, Henri. La ceramique dans I'art musulman . . . , 2 vols. Paris, E. Levy,
1913.
Robinson, B. W. Persian paintings. London, H. M. Stationery Office, 1952.
RocKHiLL, W. W. The journey of William of Rubruck to the eastern parts of the
world, 1253-55, as narrated by himself. . . . Tr. from the Latin and edited
... by William Woodville Rockhill. London, Printed for the Hakluyt Society,
1900.
Ross, Sir Edward Denison. Sir Anthony Sherley and his Persian adventure. Lon-
don, George Routledge & Sons, 1933.
Sarre, Friedrich. Denkmdler persischer Baukunst . . . , 2 folio vols. Berlin, Ernst
Wasmuth, 1901-1910.
. The holy shrine of Ardebil. Apollo, 13 (March 1931): 143-148.
Sayer, Geoffrey R. Ching-te-chen t'ao-lu. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951.
Sherley, Sir Anthony. His relations of his travels into Persia. London, 1613.
Shih-wu-kan-chu i^4^ltt^, by Huang I-cheng ^— IE, 46 chilan, author's preface
1591.
Shima ^. Mokuroku ^^/yi . Catalogue of the Shima collection of Chinese and
Japanese art to be sold at the Osaka bijutsu kurabu, Nov. 27-29, 1934. Osaka,
Taniguchi, 1934.
Smirnov, Y. I. Vostochnoye serebro. Oriental silver. (French summary headed
Ar gent erie or lent ale.) St. Petersburg, 1909.
SOTHEBY & Co., London. Catalogue of valuable Chinese porcelain . . . the prop-
erty of a well-known collector, formerly resident in Peking . . . sold at auction,
26th of May, 1937.
SsU-i-kuan-k'ao 2 chiian, [Tientsin], Tung-fang-hsUeh-hui ^ii^^y 1924.
Stein, Sir Mark Aurel. Innermost Asia . . . , 4 vols. Oxford, The Clarendon
Press, 1928.
Storey, C. A. Persian literature; a bio-bibliographical survey. London, Luzac & Co.,
1927-1953.
Ta-ming-hui-tien Compiled by Hsii P'u in 180 chiian. Edition of the
6th year of the Cheng-te period (1511).
T'ao-chi-liieh PSHteiB^, by Chiang Ch'i#;ff. A memoir included in the Fou-liang hsien-
chih, printed for the first time in 1322.
T'ao-shuo MM, by Chu Yen 6 chiian. 111 A and later editions.
Tao-yamm, by Chi Yuan-sou UU% (pseudonym of Ch'en Kung-liu m^M), 2
chiian, author's prefaces 1906 and 1910.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
171
Tavernier, Jean Baptiste. Les six voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Chevalier
Baron d'Aubonne, qu'il a fait en Turkie, en Perse, et aux Indes, nouvelle ed.,
3 vols. Paris, 1681-1881.
Thielmann, Max von. Journey in the Caucasus, Persia and Turkey in Asia, 2 vols.
London, 1875.
Trubner, Henry. Chinese ceramics from the prehistoric period through Ch'ien-lung.
Los Angeles, The Los Angeles County Museum, 1952.
Tsun-sheng-pa-chien by Kao Lien i^ii, 19 chiian, 1591.
Tung-ya ii^, by Fang I-chih 52 + 3 chuan, 1666. (Author took his Chin-
shih degree in the Ch'ung-chen period 1628-1644.)
Tuzuk-i-Jahdngiri (see Jahanglr).
Valle, Pietro della. Extracts from the travels of Pietro delta Valle in Persia. (In
Pinkerton, John, A general collection of . . . voyages and travels. London,
1808.)
. The travels of Sig. Pietro della Valle, a noble Roman, into East India
and Arabia Deserta. London, 1665.
Wallis, Henry. Persian ceramic art in the collection of Mr. F. DuCane Godman
. . . the thirteenth century lustred vases. . . . London, Taylor & Francis, 1891.
Wiet, Gaston. U exposition persane de 1931. Le Caire, Imprimerie de I'lnstitut
Frangais d'Archaeologie Orientale, 1933.
Wiles, Bertha Harris. The fountains of Florentine sculptors and their followers
from Donatello to Bernini. Cambridge, 1933.
Yamanaka Shokai llJ»t']Si#, Ko sometsuke sara hyakusen iS'^HM.^^ . Osaka,
1933. (Introduction by Okuda Seiichi.)
Yin-jen-chuan WA\^, by Chou Liang-kung M^X,3 chiian; supplement IS by Wang
Ch'i-shu mn^M, 8 chuan (1789).
Yule, Sir Henry. The book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, concerning the king-
doms and marvels of the East, 3d ed. rev., 2 vols. London, J. Murray, 1921.
Zambaur, E. de. Manuel de geneologie et de chronologie pour I'histoire de V Islam,
2 vols. Hanovre, Heinz Lafaire, 1927.
Zimmermann, Ernst. Altchinesische Porzellane im Alten Serai. Berhn und Leipzig,
de Gruyter, 1930.
NOTE
Too late for inclusion in the bibliography and for reference in the text is the latest corpus of
material for the study of Chinese porcelains of the periods represented in the Ardebil Collection.
It is volume 11 of Sekai-toji-zenshu (Catalogue of world's ceramics), pubhshed by the Zauho Press
and the Kawade Shobo, Tokyo, 1955. Treating Yiian and Ming porcelains, this volume includes
20 color plates, 119 black-and-white plates, 304 text figures, and 15 articles on various phases of
the subject.
PLATES
It has not been feasible to illustrate the several pieces shown on any one plate to
scale. The measurements given in the descriptions are to the nearest eighth inch and
the nearest half centimeter; where these two figures do not coincide, the actual size of
the piece may fall between the two. In practice few porcelains are exactly circular, nor
are the rims exactly level.
PLATE 1
Map of Asia showing the principal places mentioned in connection with the history of the Ardebil
Collection.
PLATE 1
PLATE 2
Plan of the Shrine of Sheikh SafI at Ardebil. The entrance at the bottom leads from the meidan
into the long garden court; beyond is the small forecourt (e.), and the area to the left (east) of
this originally housed the kitchens which, three times a day, provided rice for the inhabitants
of the Shrine: the mollas, the various officials, the poor, and those who sought sanctuary in the
sacred precincts. According to Olearius, as many as a thousand people were fed at a meal, and
at the ceremonial feasts of Shah 'Abbas the Chinese porcelains were used for serving. Entering
the great forecourt (f.) the visitor saw the mosque (k.) at his left and the prayer hall (h.)
directly before him, and at the right end of the latter stood the tomb of the Sheikh (i.).
Beyond the prayer hall, at the extreme upper left of the plan, is the Chini-khaneh.
From Sarre, Denkmdler persischer Baukunst, vol. 1, fig. 31, p. 35.
PLATE 2
PLATE 3
The Chini-khaneh seen from the northeast.
Photograph by Myron Bement Smith.
Courtesy of the Islamic Archives.
PLATE 3
PLATE 4
Interior of the Chini-khaneh showing the southeast corner.
Photograph by Myron Bement Smith.
Courtesy of the Islamic Archives.
See pages 7, 17.
PLATE 4
See pages 7, 17.
PLATE 5
Folios 341r and 341v of the Ta'rikh-e-'Abbasi (B.M. Add. 27.241). The passage marked is the
List of porcelains dedicated to the Shrine by Shah 'Abbas in the month Jumada II 1020 (11
August-8 September, 1611).
See page 10.
PLATE 6
The non-Chinese marks
A-D. Examples of the vaqfndmeh of Shah 'Abbas incised in the glaze and rubbed with red pigment
on three blue-and-white wares and one plain white piece.
E. Abbreviated vaqfndmeh of Shah 'Abbas.
F-G. Examples of the mark of Qarachaghay incised in a Hne and drilled in dots on the unglazed
bases of dishes.
H. Marks of Behbud and Qarachaghay drilled in the glaze on 29.471.
I. Mark of Abu Talib drilled in the unglazed base of 29.469.
J. Mark of Jahanglr. (Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum.)
K. Undeciphered mark in underglaze blue on 29.49.
L. Bottle with Portuguese inscription in underglaze blue. (Courtesy of the Walters Art Gallery.)
See pages 51-58.
PLATE 6
PLATE 7
Dish with flattened rim on which are segments of concentric wave patterns; a lotus wreath with spiky
leaves decorates the cavetto; in the center is a lotus pond with two ducks. On the outside is a
band of lotus panels framing abstract leaf forms.
The blue on this piece is exceptionally strong.
29.38 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 16 in. (41 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
PLATE 7
29.38
PLATE 8
Dishes with flattened rims decorated with diamond patterns; in the cavettoes are lotus wreaths with
spiky leaves; the centers show ponds with symmetrically disposed aquatic plants although the
two scenes are not identical in detail. On the outsides are rows of lotus panels.
29.40-41 H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. 16 in. (40.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
PLATE 9
Dish with flattened rim decorated with diamond pattern, and a lotus wreath with spiky leaves in the
cavetto; central design of a large fish of the sea-perch family swimming among aquatic plants,
which include duckweed, eelgrass, waterchestnuts, water ferns, and feathery grasses. On the
outside is a lotus scroll with spiky leaves (pi. 10).
On the body of the fish is the character ch'im, "spring," written by scratching away the pigment
before the piece was glazed and fired.
29.42 H. 21 in. (6.5 cm.). D. 16 in. (41 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
PLATE 9
PLATE 10
Base of dish on preceding plate (29.42).
Base of dish on following plate (29.43).
PLATE 10
PLATE 11
Dish with flattened rim decorated with the classic scroll; a lotus wreath with spiky leaves in the
cavetto surrounds the central scene in which is a large carp among aquatic plants including
duckweed, eelgrass, waterchestnuts, and water ferns. On the outside is a lotus scroll with spiky
leaves (pi. 10).
29.43 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 18 in. (45.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
PLATE 11
PLATE 12
Dish with flattened rim. The classic scroll on the rim and the cavetto with lotus wreath and spiky
leaves surround a central pattern of banana, rocks, melons, bamboos, and a lotus spray. On
the outside is a band of lotus panels framing abstract leaf forms.
29.39 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 16 in. (40.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
PLATE 12
PLATE 13
Dishes with flattened rims decorated with diamond patterns; lotus wreaths with spiky leaves in the
cavettoes surround central designs composed of bamboos, bananas, grapes, morning-glories,
rocks, and watermelons. Outside both are lotus scrolls with spiky leaves.
These two illustrate the freedom and variety with which two essentially similar designs may be
executed. The morning-glories are missing from 29.121.
29.120-121 (2 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 18 in. (45.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 70, 94.
PLATE 13
29.120
29.121
PLATE 14
Dish with flattened rim decorated with crapemyrtle and blackberry hly; lotus wreath with spiky
leaves in cavetto; in the center a phoenix flies downward over banana and bamboo plants
between sprays of lotus and chrysanthemum. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
This has the reddest base of all the fourteenth-century group, but the color is only faintly glossy and
does not seem wiped on. There are traces of radial chatter near the center.
29.122 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 16 in. (41 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
29.122
PLATE 15
Dish with flattened rim; border of diamond-shaped diaper pattern; lotus wreath with spiky leaves
in cavetto; in the center a 3-clawed dragon with small white scales flies against a background
of white cloud over a sea of concentric waves. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
This dish is very much warped.
29.47 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 18 in. (46 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 66, 71.
PLATE 15
PLATE 16
Dish with flattened fohate rim and the main decoration reserved in white against a blue ground;
border of serpentine waves breaking to the right; lotus wreath in cavetto; four cloud collar
points extend inward on a ground of serpentine waves, each point framing a lotus composition;
a central circle frames a melon and grape scene. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
29.45 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 16i in. (41.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 67.
29.45
PLATE 17
Dish with flattened foliate rim and main decoration reserved in white against a blue ground; border
of serpentine waves breaking to the left; peony wreath in cavetto; eight large and eight small
cloud collar points framing floral sprays, the outer row including two peonies, chrysanthemum,
camellia, morning-glory, lotus, and two unidentified blossoms; in center, two phoenixes amid
cloud scrolls in fohate medallion. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
29.46 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 18 in. (46 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 67.
PLATE 17
PLATE 18
Dish with flattened foliate rim and main decorative zones reserved in white against a blue ground;
border of serpentine waves breaking to the left; lotus wreath in cavetto; a second band of
serpentine waves oriented in the opposite direction to be seen from the rim of the dish and
breaking to the right; two cloud collar bands, the outer one framing an area of cloud scrolls,
the inner framing the central design of two egrets among lotus plants. Outside is a lotus wreath
with spiky leaves.
29.44 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 15i in. (40 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 67.
PLATE 18
29.44
PLATE 19
Dish with flattened foliate rim and the main decoration reserved in blue against a white ground;
border of serpentine waves breaking to the left; peony wreath in cavetto; a second band of
serpentine waves, this time breaking to the right; four phoenixes flying among chrysanthemum
scrolls; eight auspicious objects framed in stylized lotus panels; a lotus spray with spiky leaves
in an 8-pointed cloud collar frame.
29.49 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 22i in. (57.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 67.
PLATE 19
PLATE 20
Base of dish on preceding plate (29.49); a lotus wreath with spiky leaves lies above a band of lotus
petals surrounding the foot rim; under the rim is a Persian inscription in underglaze blue.
See pages 55, 67.
PLATE 20
29.49
PLATE 21
Dish with flattened foliate rim and decoration in white against a blue ground; border of serpentine
waves breaking to the right; chrysanthemum scrolls in cavetto; band of camellia scroll sur-
rounding a circle of fourteen lotus-petal panels alternately framing floral sprays (including two
chrysanthemums, peony, lotus, camellia, and poppy) and auspicious objects; in the center are
two phoenixes among cloud scrolls. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
The white areas on one side of this dish are spattered with blue as though cobalt had been spilled on
it by accident before glazing.
29.127 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 18 in. (46 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim and main decoration in white against a blue ground; border of serpen-
tine waves based on the outer edge of the rim and breaking to the right; peony scrolls in cavetto;
6-pointed cloud collar medallion with a border of serpentine waves breaking to the right; be-
tween the points are small formal scrolls and inside each point a phoenix flies among cloud
scrolls; in the center six lotus-petal panels frame floral sprays surrounding a miniature cloud
collar medallion. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
29.48 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 18 in. (45.5 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 67.
PLATE 21
PLATE 22
Dish with flattened foliate rim of which the white outer edge is raised in relief; the border is decorated
with white floral scrolls in relief on a blue ground showing three kinds of flowers (chrysanthe-
mum, gardenia, and crabapple) arranged in five segments, three long and two short; the
cavetto has a peony scroll in white slip relief against a ground of fine blue lines; in the center a
phoenix flies upward among rocks, banana, bamboo, morning-glory, grapes, and melons.
Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
29.128 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 18^ in. (47.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim decorated with crapemyrtle scroll and blackberry-lily blossoms; peony
wreath in white on blue in cavetto; in the center is a lotus pond with four plants. Outside is a
lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
29.123 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 18i in. (47 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim of which the white outer edge is raised in relief; the border has a single
white chrysanthemum scroll in relief against a blue ground; in the cavetto is a peony scroU in
white slip relief, enhanced with blue outline on the petals, against a ground of fine blue hnes; in
the center is a lotus pond with four plants. Outside is a lotus wreath with spiky leaves.
29.129 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 171 in. (45 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 67, 70.
PLATE 22
29.123
29.129
PLATE 23
Bowl with contracted rim slightly beveled on the outside; inside decoration and one band outside
reserved in white against a blue ground; a border of 17 lotus panels inside the rim provides
frames for as many separate floral sprays, among which lotus, chrysanthemum, and peony are
recognizable; below this is a scrolling band showing three peonies, three chrysanthemums, a
lotus, and a clematis (?); the next band has a peacock and a peahen among peony scrolls;
in the center, on a ground of concentric waves is a 4-pointed cloud collar design somewhat
resembling a Buddhist double vajra. Outside is a border of nondescript waves above a wide
band of peony wreath; a band of classic scroll lies above a row of lotus panels framing alternate
chrysanthemum and blackberry-lily blossoms amid foliage.
The foot rim is i"- (1-8 cm.) thick, 1| in. (4 cm.) deep, and 5i in. (13 cm.) across at its
bottom point. It seems to have been made separately and luted to the bowl. (PI. 141.)
29.319 H. li in. (18.5 cm.). D. 14i in. (37 cm.) at rim.
Fourteenth century.
See pages 60, 61, 68, 100.
PLATE 23
29.319
PLATE 24
Bowl with flaring rim; inside is a border of crapemyrtle scroll with blackberry-lily blossoms above
a broad band of plain white; in the center are bamboo, grapes, and morning-glories. Outside is
a broad band of lotus wreath with spiky leaves above a row of lotus panels framing stylized
leaf forms.
The foot is glazed down to the outer angle of the bevel (pi. 141), and the unglazed base under-
neath shows a very fine smooth paste.
29.320 H. 5 in. (12.5 cm.). D. lU in. (30 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 60, 61, 68, 156.
PLATE 24
29.320
PLATE 25
Four vases of mei-p'ing shape illustrating some of the common decorative motifs of the period;
classic scroll and various diaper patterns fill the narrow bands; on the shoulders are plain peony
scrolls, peony scrolls with phoenix, lotus scrolls with pai-ts'e, and cloud collar points framing
phoenixes amid foliage and flowers; large peony scrolls appear on the central zone of all this
group though other forms are known; the lotus panels below are typical as are the motifs they
frame. The unglazed bases have low, broad, roughly cut rims.
The mark of Qarachaghay is seen on the shoulders of all but 29.412, which lacks it; except for
these three mei-p'ing all other pieces bearing his mark are fifteenth-century wares.
29.406 H. 15i in. (39.5 cm.). D. M in. (22.5 cm.).
29.407 H. 16i in. (42 cm.). D. 8f in. (22.5 cm.).
29.408 H. 17 in. (43 cm.). D. 9\ in. (24 cm.).
29.412 H. 16i in. (42 cm.). D. 9 in. (25 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 62, 63, 68.
PLATE 26
Vase of kuan shape with diaper band on lip; serpentine waves break to the right around the neck, and
on the shoulder are two pai-is'e with large blue scales standing among bamboo, banana, grapes,
melons, and morning-glories; the handles are restored; main zone of large peony scroll; band of
diamond diaper pattern above lotus panels framing styhzed leaves, lotus buds, and circles.
29.523 H. \9i in. (50.5 cm.). D. 16 in. (40.5 cm.).
Vase of mei-p'ing shape showing a praying mantis carrying a bee among scrolling grapevines within
the cloud collar frame. The incorrectly restored neck has been blacked out in the photograph.
Unnumbered (Isfahan). H. 151 in. (40 cm.) as restored.
Vase of kuan shape with classic scroll on lip and breaking waves on neck; on the upper shoulder 16
pendent lotus panels frame auspicious objects and flower sprays; below this two lions, each with
a brocaded ball, and two ch'i-Uns cavort among lotus scrolls with spiky leaves; main zone of
large peony scroll above a narrow band of chrysanthemums on a scrolling vine; lotus panels
frame stylized leaves and lotus buds below. Lacks the Shah 'Abbas mark.
29.522 H. 16i in. (41 cm.). D. 14i in. (37.5 cm.).
The proportions of the two kuan illustrated on this plate differ considerably one from the other, and
the painting of the design on 29.522 might be considered more sophisticated in some details;
it may perhaps date from the closing years of the century and be some decades later than
29.523.
Fourteenth century.
See pages 62, 63, 68.
PLATE 26
PLATE 27
Vase of kuan shape with serpentine waves around the neck; the main design shows a peacock and
a peahen amid poppy scrolls; at the base stand lotus panels framing stylized leaf forms and cir-
cles. Lacks the mark of Shah 'Abbas.
29.480 H. 101 in. (27.5 cm.). D. 13 in. (33 cm.).
Bottom half of an octagonal "double gourd" vase; the main zone of peony scroll is bounded above
and below by rows of lotus panels framing stylized leaf forms, lotus buds, and circles.
The low broad foot is so cut that the central recess is circular in form. (Cf. Pope, Fourteenth-
Century Blue-and-White, pis. 33, 34.)
29.510 H. 13J in. (34 cm.). D. 12i in. (32 cm.').
Fourteenth century.
See pages 62, 63, 68, 69.
29.510
PLATE 28
Two vases of flat rectangular shape with necks and four loop handles on the curving shoulders;
29.475 has on one side a peacock and a peahen amid peonies growing from behind a garden
rock, on the other a phoenix flies down over a pai-ts'e among lotus scrolls; chrysanthemum
sprays decorate the ends; two of the four handles are restored; on 29.476 complex cloud collars
frame blossoms and foliage against a plain white ground; below are peacocks and peahens
among peonies, and on each end is a lotus spray. The neck and all four handles are restored to
conform with those on 29.475 but traces of scrolling tails in relief and underglaze blue below
the restoration suggest that the originals were in the form of dragons. (Cf. OCS, Catalogue,
1953, no. 29; and Garner, Oriental blue and white, pi. 24.)
The bases of both are roughly finished and splashed with glaze.
29.475 H. 141 in. (36.5 cm.). W. 101 in. (26.5 cm.). T. 4 in. (10 cm.).
29.476 H. 15 in. (38 cm.). W. 11 in. (28 cm.). T. 3i in. (9 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See pages 62, 63, 68.
PLATE 29
Dishes with flattened foliate rims; borders decorated with various designs such as floral and fungus
sprays and scroll patterns; flower sprays in molded sections of cavetto; in the centers iUustrated
are a fungus scroll around a lotus petal medallion, a chrysanthemum scroll around a stylized
blossom, and a grape spray; outsides decorated with similar variety; unglazed bases reveal fine
paste and the foot rims are neatly trimmed.
Similar dishes with raised rings in the centers are called cup stands (cf. PMA, 24, 25); the type is
also known in underglaze red.
29.271-275 (5 pieces) H. 1 in. (2.5 cm.). D. 71 in. (19.5 cm.).
Late fourteenth or early fifteenth century.
See pages 78, 79, 81.
PLATE 29
PLATE 30
Dish with plain rim; inside is a border of stylized waves above a cavetto decoration of scrolling vine
with 13 blossoms; in the center is a bouquet tied with a fillet. Outside are bands of classic
scroll, scrolling vine and thunder pattern.
There are 17 of these dishes; 29.8-9 lack the Shah 'Abbas mark; 12 are marked Qarachaghdy; 2
are marked Qul'i, several bear undeciphered owners' marks, and 29.3 has what looks like Uighur
script in ink on the base. The piece illustrated has a Chinese inscription on the base in ink.
Even on the original it is very faint and some of the characters are illegible, but the iron red of
the base seems to lie on top of the ink, which may mean it was written before the piece was
fired. It consists of 43 characters in five unequal lines as follows:
o
\%
-ti
m
p
#
m
m
m
h
o
o
X
+
o
o
O
o
m
It has not been possible to make a sensible translation of this inscription so far. Two things, how-
ever, are worthy of note. The first two characters, ch'ing-hiia, are perfectly clear and may, if
the inscription was actually written when the piece was made, be the earliest occurrence of this
standard term for "blue-and-white" noticed thus far. And second, there seems to be reference
to 1 35 monetary units of some sort. Whether this refers to the price of the dish cannot now be
determined, but it seems like a possibility that deserves consideration.
29.1-7 (7 pieces) H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 16 in. (41 cm.).
29.8-11 (4 pieces) " " D. 13i in. (34 cm.).
29.12-15 (4 pieces) " " D. 12i in. (31 cm.).
29.16-17(2 pieces) " " D. 11 in. (27.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 71, 85, 90, 92.
29.1
PLATE 31
Four dishes with bouquet patterns to illustrate the variations in the drawing of the central motif, in
the intensity of the blue, and, on 29.21 and 29.33, in the treatment of the rim and its decoration.
The two on the left are from the group described facing plate 30. Eleven of the type represented by
29.21 and both 29.33 and 29.34 have the mark of Qarachaghay; one of the former is marked
Qul'i and one NdrinjJ.
29.18-27 (10 pieces) H. 2i in. (6 cm.). D. 13i in. (34 cm.).
29.28-31 (4 pieces) " " D. 12i in. (31.5 cm.).
29.32 (1 piece) " " D. 1 U in. (28.5 cm.).
29.33-34 (2 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 17 in. (43 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 71, 85, 90, 92.
PLATE 31
PLATE 32
Dish with flattened rim decorated with eight flower and fruit sprays among which chrysanthemum,
pomegranate, and camellia are identifiable; in the cavetto is a scrolling vine with eight lotus
blossoms; the center frames a single large branch with two full-blown peonies, another just
opening, and one bud; outside is a scroll with lotus buds.
29.65-66 (2 pieces) H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. Hi in. (43.5 cm.).
Dish with plain rim, leafy scroll border, and nine flower and fruit sprays in the cavetto; the central
design and outside are as above except for the spindly stem.
29.64 (1 piece) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 17i in. (44.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened rim decorated with classic scroll; peony scrofl with seven blossoms in cavetto;
central peony design as above but with different leaves; floral scrolls outside.
29.67-71 (5 pieces) H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 141 in. (37.5 cm.).
All eight dishes have the mark of Qarachaghay.
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 90, 91, 93, 144.
PLATE 32
PLATE 33
Dish with plain flattened rim decorated with fungus scrolls; in the cavetto are eight peony blossoms
on a scrolling vine; in the center, within an 8-pointed foliate frame drawn with double line, are
three large chrysanthemum flowers on a vine spray arranged in a circle and bearing one smaller
blossom and a number of buds. Outside are six separate floral sprays including rose, lotus,
peony, and chrysanthemum.
Eight of these pieces bear the mark of Qarachaghay.
29.72-77 (6 pieces) H. li in. (7 cm.). D. 15 in. (38 cm.).
[One of this group is I4i in. in diameter.]
29.78 (1 piece) H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 16 in. (40.5 cm.).
29.79-81 (3 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 17 in. (43.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim on which is a single scrolling vine with 24 small lotus blossoms sepa-
rated by as many leaves; in the 12 molded sections of the cavetto are 12 single flower sprays
including peony, lotus, cameUia, convolvulus, crabapple, pomegranate, and chrysanthemum; in
the center in a hexafoil frame in double line is a spray of three lotus blossoms with leaves.
Outside are six fungus sprays alternating with six lotus sprays.
Both pieces bear the mark of Qarachaghay; one is also marked Qull and the other bears an unde-
ciphered mark.
29.82-83 (2 pieces) H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. 141 in. (37.5 cm.).
H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 16 in. (40.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 49, 90, 91, 93.
PLATE 33
PLATE 34
Dish with flattened rim decorated with a fine scroUing vine bearing peony leaves; in the cavetto is a
scroIHng vine with 11 blossoms including chrysanthemum, lotus, and camellia; in the center are
four main flowers (hibiscus, peony, and two camellias) and three lesser ones; outside are floral
scrolls.
29.91-94 (4 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 16i in. (41 cm.).
Dish with flattened rim decorated with waves; other details as above.
29.84-90 (7 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 151 in. (40 cm.).
Dish with plain rim and wave border; floral scroll in cavetto has 12 blossoms arranged in pairs in-
cluding lotus, peonies, camellias, and chrysanthemums; in the center are five lotus blossoms
and a leaf amid scrolls; outside is a fungus scroll border, floral scroll cavetto, and a scalloped
band at the base with trefoils perched on alternate tips.
29.95-99 (5 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 15i in. (39 cm.).
Twelve of these 16 dishes are marked Qarachaghay; three have undeciphered marks.
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 90, 93.
PLATE 34
PLATE 35
Three dishes with flattened foliate rims decorated with scrolling vines and fungus; in the molded sec-
tions of the cavettoes are 12 separate floral sprays consisting of a series of six repeated; morn-
ing-glory, chrysanthemum, peony, and lotus have been identified; in the center are five main
blossoms and four lesser ones formally disposed on an elaborate, scrolling vine; lotus, peony,
and perhaps cameflia may be identified; outside are 12 floral sprays.
These three pieces from the same set and bearing identical designs are illustrated to show the varia-
tions that may be found in the style and quality of the drawing and in the density of the blue as
between dishes which are, for all practical purposes, and no doubt by intent, all alike.
Nine of this group have the mark of Qarachaghay.
29.101-111 (11 pieces) H. 2| in. (7 cm.). D. 15 in. (38 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See page 91.
PLATE 35
PLATE 36
Dish with flattened rim decorated with a scrolling vine and 24 small curiously stylized flowers,
probably lotus; in the cavetto is a scrolling vine with 12 blossoms, among which seem to be
lotus, peony, camellia, morning-glory, chrysanthemum, and others, although the stylization
makes it impossible to be certain; the six large flowers in the center are equally difficult, though
lotus and chrysanthemum are clearly seen; outside are floral scrolls.
29.112-114 (3 pieces) H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 17 in. (43.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim; except for the difi'erences imposed by the foliate form and molded
cavetto, the decoration is like that described above.
29.115-117, 125, 126 (5 pieces) H. 2i in. (6 cm.). D. 13i in. (34 cm.).
Dish with plain rim and classic scroll border; in the cavetto are eight lotus blossoms on a scroUing
vine, and in the center six lotus formally placed amid symmetrically arranged scroUs; outside are
a border of thunder pattern, a band of floral scrolls, and classic scroll around the foot.
The drawing on this small dish is exceptionally fine, and the effect is further enhanced by the contrast
between the formal stylization of the lotus in the center and the more naturalistic treatment of
those in the cavetto which are accompanied by real lotus leaves, sagittaria, smaU water plants,
and the conventional pointed leaves all on the same vine.
29.118-119 (2 pieces) H. 2i in. (5.5 cm.). D. 1 1 in. (28 cm.).
Of the ten dishes in these three groups, nine bear the mark of Qarachaghay.
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 90, 91, 93.
PLATE 36
29.1 17
29.119
PLATE 37
Dish with flattened foliate rim decorated with waves; in the 12 molded sections of the cavetto are
six fungus sprays alternating with six flower sprays including cameUia, peony, chrysanthemum,
lotus, and hibiscus; in the center are three bunches of grapes with leaves and tendrils on a vine;
outside are 1 2 separate floral sprays.
An undeciphered Persian word is drilled on the base.
29.55 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 17 in (43 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 49, 85, 90, 94.
PLATE 37
PLATE 38
Two dishes with grape patterns illustrating differences in treatment of the rims and the border and
cavetto patterns as well as in the details of the grapes themselves.
All eight dishes bear the mark of Qarachaghay.
29.50-54 (5 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 14| in. (37.5 cm.).
29.56-58 (3 pieces) H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 17 in. (43.5 cm.).
[One of the latter is 171 in. in diameter and somewhat lighter in weight than the other two.]
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 85, 90, 91, 94, 144.
PLATE 38
PLATE 39
Dish with plain rim decorated inside with a border of 23 individual flower sprays; a scrolling vine
with some 20 blossoms in the cavetto; in the center are three bunches of grapes on a vine with
tendrils and pointed leaves and an indication of a moss-grown wall; outside is a scrolling vine
with 12 lotus blossoms.
29.60 has the mark of Qarachaghay.
29.59-60 (2 pieces) H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 16i in. (41 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 49, 85, 90, 91, 94, 156.
29.60
PLATE 40
Dish with flattened rim decorated inside with a border of waves; in the cavetto is a scrolling vine with
seven flowers; the central design shows a melon vine growing from the ground with three fruits,
leaves, and tendrils; outside are six fruit sprays.
29.61 H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. 14i in. (37 cm.).
Dish with plain rim and thunder-pattern border; in the cavetto is a scroUing vine with 12 blossoms;
in the center the pine, prunus, and bamboo, the three friends, are represented by a branch of
each; outside are a leafy scroll border, a scroUing vine with blossoms, and a band of thunder
pattern at the base.
29.35 H. 2i in. (6 cm.). D. 12i in. (31 cm.).
Dish with flattened rim (chipped) decorated with fungus scroll; scrolling vine with eight flowers
(chrysanthemums?) in cavetto; in the center a peach branch with two fruits and blossoms.
Outside are six flower sprays.
29.62 H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. 14i in. (37 cm.).
The melon and peach dishes are marked Qarachaghay, and the latter also Quti.
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 90, 93, 94.
PLATE 40
PLATE 41
Large dish with flattened foliate rim decorated with stylized waves; in the 16 molded sections of the
cavetto are that number of identical sprays of roses; the central design is a large branch with
leaves and three bunches of litchi nuts. Outside are a fungus scroll border and 16 separate
fungus sprays.
The word Quli is drilled in the base.
29.63 H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 24i in. (62.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 49, 85, 90, 91, 94, 95, 156.
PLATE 42
Large dish with plain rim; in the cavetto are eight flower and fruit sprays, reading clockwise:
camellia, cherry(?), day lily, pomegranate, narcissus, pomegranate, chrysanthemum, and
peach; in the center is a landscape scene with coxcomb, knotweed, nightshade, narcissus, and
dandelion. (Outside on pi. 44.)
29.310 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 25 in. (63.5 cm.).
Large dish with plain rim; cavetto decorated with six flower sprays — chrysanthemum, lotus (and
other aquatic plants), peony, gardenia, pomegranate, and camellia; the central landscape
includes lily (?), pine, azalea, primrose, and palm. (Outside on pi. 44.)
29.312 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 25 in. (63.5 cm.).
Number 29.310 bears the mark of Qarachaghay.
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 49, 85, 91, 95.
PLATE 43
Large dish with plain rim; the cavetto is decorated with eight separate groups of plants each growing
from its own patch of ground, among them are Pennisetum japonicum, Calystegia hederacea,
and dandelion; aster and Commelina communis; knotweed and narcissus; aster and lily(?);
sedge and ??; carnation; fern and sedge; rose(?); in the central landscape are Pennisetum
japonicum, crabapple, nightshade, aster, hly(?), plantain, and fern. (Outside on pi. 44.)
29.311 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 25 in. (63.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 49, 85, 91, 95.
PLATE 43
29.311
PLATE 44
Backs of the three dishes shown on plates 42-43.
On 29.310 are the three friends: pine, prunus, and bamboo; the pine is drawn with unusually long,
feathery needles.
On 29.311 are eight clumps of growing plants as in the cavetto, but here a series of four groups is
repeated: fern and aster, Commelina communis and narcissus, Pennisetum japonicum and
plantain, and a niy(?) and dandelion.
On 23.312 are six flower sprays: crabapple, day lily(?), unidentified, tiger lily, Calystegia hederacea,
and camellia.
See pages 49, 91.
PLATE 44
PLATE 45
Dish with plain rim; inside is a border of thunder pattern above a cavetto with scrolhng vines and 12
blossoms; in the center the whole area is covered with a turbulent sea over which flies a 3-
clawed dragon reserved in white and delineated in every detail by lines incised in the paste; the
eyes are spotted with blue. Outside, between a thunder pattern at the rim and a band of
classic scroll above the foot, four 3-clawed dragons fly to the left amid cloud scrolls.
29.36-37 (2 pieces) H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 15i, I5i in. (38.5-40 cm.). A third one in Isfahan
is 131 in. (34.5 cm.) in diameter.
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 91, 96.
PLATE 45
29.37
PLATE 46
Bowl with incurving rim. The inside is plain except for a spray of peaches in a double circle in the
center. Outside is a wave border bounded by a single line from which depends a row of small
trefoils; and the main decoration consists of lotus blossoms on a scrolling vine with buds and
conventional leaves; at the base is a band of stylized lotus petals.
29.328 H. 5 in. (12.5 cm.). D. U in. (22.5 cm.).
Bowl of lien-tzu shape. Inside is a border of thunder pattern above four fruit sprays surrounding a
small fruit spray in the center. An attenuated version of the classic scroll forms the narrow
outside border above a main decoration of lotus petals painted in pale blue with outline; a
small band of thunder pattern borders the foot.
29.327 H. 4in. (10 cm.). D. 8i in. (21 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 86, 97, 99.
PLATE 47
Bowl with flaring rim. A border of thunder pattern lies above a main decorative zone of floral
scrolls outside with a row of stylized lotus petal panels below; a band of classic scroll surrounds
the foot. Inside is a narrow border of floral scroll, a main band of lotus and other flowers
amid scrolling vines, and in the center a single lotus blossom with scrolling leafy vine.
29.321 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 7i in. (19.5 cm.).
Bowl of lien-tzu shape. Outside, a border of thunder pattern and plain dark blue petals. Inside, a
wave border and a floral scroll with six blossoms surround a central spray of cherries.
29.324-326 (3 pieces) H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 8i in. (21 cm.).
Conical bowl with plain rim. Decorated outside with the three friends: pine, prunus, and bamboo;
the inside is plain white.
29.329-330 (2 pieces) H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 8| in. (22 cm.).
Conical bowl with very sHghtly flaring plain rim. Decorated outside with three flower sprays alternat-
ing with three fruit sprays above a row of stylized lotus-petal panels; inside is a single line at the
rim and a flower in a double circle in the center.
29.332 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 8 in. (20.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century. (29.332 possibly "Interregnum.")
See pages 50, 54, 86, 97, 98, 99, 105.
PLATE 47
PLATE 48
Conical bowl with very slightly flaring rim. Decorated outside with floral scrolls above a row of
stylized lotus petals; inside are a blue double line around the rim and floral scrolls executed in
very delicate slip painting under the glaze, a stylized blue blossom in a double circle occupies the
center.
29.334 H. 2J in. (7 cm.). D. 8 in (20.5 cm.).
Conical bowl with very slightly flaring rim. Decorated outside with a single 3-clawed dragon flying
to the left amid clouds in pursuit of a flaming pearl; inside, the rim is decorated with a band of
classic scroll and a single flower in a circle occupies the center.
29.333 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 8 in. (20.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 86, 98.
PLATE 48
PLATE 49
Four bowls with steep sides decorated with the usual flower and fruit patterns and conventional
designs.
Two of these, 29.338 and 29.340, represent a group of four characterized by unusually thick and
squarely cut foot rims; a bluish-white glaze is unevenly smeared over the flat bases, and the
paste takes on a yellowish tone where the glaze is thin. It is just possible that these may be
somewhat later. On 29.339 is the incised mark of Behbud, and 29.340 bears the abbreviated
Shah 'Abbas mark.
29.335 H. 4i in. (12 cm.). D. Hi in. (29 cm.).
29.336 H. 4i in. (10.5 cm.). D. 8 in. (20.5 cm.).
29.337-338 (2 pieces) H. 3i-3i in. (9-9.5 cm.). D. 7i-7i in. (18-19 cm.).
29.339-340 (2 pieces) H. 3i-3| in. (9-9.5 cm.). D. 6i-li in. (17.5-19 cm.).
Early fifteenth century and perhaps "Interregnum."
See pages 54, 98, 105, 145.
PLATE 49
29.338
29.340
PLATE 50
Vase of mei-p'ing shape. On the shoulder 16 pendent, stylized lotus-petal panels frame eight aus-
picious objects alternating with eight flames, and the main design shows a white 5-cIawed
dragon flying to the left in pursuit of a flaming jewel over a sea of tossing waves. AU details of
the dragon are indicated by fine lines incised in the paste, and the eyes are spots of blue. At the
base what appear to be the tips of pendent lotus panels are seen between the tops of a row of
upright panels framing stylized leaves and single lotus sprays.
The base is unglazed, and the very fine pure-white paste is perfectly flat with no sign of a rim. This
vase has an unusually pinched-in waist and is light in weight for its size, suggesting that it is very
thinly potted. Both the proportions and the decoration seem to be rare if not unique among
surviving early fifteenth-century mei-p'ing, while the quality is unsurpassed.
29.403 H. 161 in. (41.5 cm.). D. 9i in. (25 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 34, 50, 80, 86, 96, 98.
PLATE 51
Four vases of mei-p'ing shape decorated with lotus scrolls, fruit sprays, lotus sprays, lotus panels,
ferns or plantain leaves, and various formal scrolls. The three pieces showing lotus scrolls as
the main design illustrate the diversity of ways in which that motif may be drawn.
The six pieces represented by 29.419 are all light in weight and of the best quahty; 29.421 and 29.422
have undeciphered Persian script in ink on their bases.
29.416-419, 421-422 (6 pieces) H. 91 in. (25 cm.). D. 6i in. (15.5 cm.).
Number 29.413 represents four vases with identical decoration but of different sizes; 29.414 has
considerable crackle, and 29.482 is badly cracked and stained. This group may possibly be
slighdy later than the rest.
29.413 H. 91 in. (24.5 cm.). D. 5| in. (14.5 cm.).
29.414 H. 9^ in. (25 cm.). D. 6i in. (16 cm.).
29.404, 482 (2 pieces) H. 16i in. (41.5 cm.). D. 9i in. (25 cm.).
29.411 H. 13i in. (35 cm.). D. 8i in. (21 cm.).
29.409 H. 16i in. (41 cm.). D. 9J in. (25 cm.).
Early fifteenth century and perhaps "Interregnum."
See pages 50, 86, 98, 105, 146.
PLATE 51
PLATE 52
Vase of kuan shape with undecorated neck; on the shoulder is a meander recalUng the cloud collar
form which frames formal floral devices in alternately pendent and erect positions; the main
design is a large lotus scroll with proper as well as styUzed leaves, and six floral sprays sur-
round the foot. The unglazed base has a fine paste fired iron red.
There is a small repair on one side of the neck.
29.495 H. 8i in. (21 cm.). D. m in. (26.5 cm.).
Vase of kuan shape with undecorated neck; on the shoulder a sixfold cloud collar serves to frame six
flower sprays within its points which, in turn, fall between the six large fruit sprays which make
up the main decoration; a thick, elaborate scroll band surrounds the base. The bottom is un-
glazed with low rounded rim, and the fine paste is iron red on the surface.
29.479 H. lOi in. (26 cm.). D. 12i in. (32 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See page 98.
PLATE 52
29.479
PLATE 53
Bottles of the yii-hu-ch'un-p'ing shape with various styles of floral decoration and conventional
motifs. The bases are glazed underneath.
Number 29.448 bears the abbreviated mark of Shah 'Abbas. Still another bottle (29.446) has a
similar design but is larger in size (H. IH in., D. 7i in.), and the broken neck rim has been
repaired with a brass mounting set with turquoise.
29.447, 449 (2 pieces) H. \2\ in. (31.5 cm.). D. 7i in. (18.5 cm.).
29.448, 450 (2 pieces) H. 101 in. (27 cm.). D. 6i in. (16.5 cm.).
Large bottle with bulbous body; floral scroll at neck and main decoration of a single large 3-clawed
dragon moving to the right, but with the head turned back over the shoulder, amid lotus scrolls.
29.470 H. 17 in. (43 cm.). D. 13i in. (34.5 cm.).
Large bottles with bulbous bodies; thick scroll borders at the necks and both main decorations show-
ing white 3-clawed dragons moving to the right, with heads turned backward, over seas of tossing
blue waves; details of the dragons are incised in the paste and the eyes are spotted with blue.
The bases are unglazed.
29.478 shows extremely fine paste and bears the Abu Talib mark drilled in the base. On 29.471 the
marks of Behbud and Qarachaghay may be seen drilled on the face of the dragon; and there is
undeciphered Arabic writing in ink on the base.
29.471 H. 16i in. (42 cm.). D. 13i in. (35 cm.).
29.478 H. 17 in. (43 cm.). D. 13i in. (34.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 54, 86, 96. 99.
PLATE 53
29.470
29.471
PLATE 54
Ewers (chih-hu) decorated with rows of stiff leaves around the necks above bands of lotus scrolls;
each body shows a spray of two peaches and blossoms on a leafy branch in a 4-pointed foliate
medallion flanked by a chrysanthemum spray on the right and a peony spray on the left; bands
of stylized lotus-petal panels ring the bases above classic scrolls on the foot rims. Fungus sprays
are on the handles and scrolls on the spouts; the bases are glazed underneath.
The handle of one ewer (29.426) is broken, and the tip of the spout has been cut down on the other
(29.427) as may be seen in the illustration.
29.426-427 (2 pieces) H. lOf in. (27 cm.). D. 6i in. (16 cm.).
Ewers (chih-hu) decorated with rows of upright leaves around the neck; various floral scrolls
decorate the bodies and spouts while bands of thunder pattern appear at the tips of the spouts
and around the feet. The bases are glazed underneath.
29.428, 432 (2 pieces) H. Ill in. (30 cm.). W. 9 in. (23 cm.). D. 7 in. 18 cm.).
Ewers (chih-hu) decorated mainly with floral scrolls; an unusually heavy and formalized scroll ap-
pears on the neck just below where the handle joins, and a band of pendent trefoils lies under
this; on each side a large cloud collar point ornamented with the classic scroll serves as frame
for a single lotus spray with blossom, bud, and leaves. The feet carry patterns consisting
of oblique striated lines which may possibly be interpreted as modified forms of conventional
waves. The bases are glazed.
The handle and spout of 29.430 have been broken and partially restored with plaster.
29.429-430 (2 pieces) H. lU in. (28.5 cm.). D. 6i in. (16.5 cm.).
Ewer (chih-hu) of different form decorated with floral scrolls on the cylindrical neck; a double
raised flange lies on the shoulder, the upper part circular, the lower part stellate in form, and
surrounding this is a border of stylized lotus-petal panels; a band of crapemyrtle with black-
berry-lily blossoms tops the main body of the vessel which is vertically molded in eight sections,
each framing a flower or fungus spray; a classic scroll band surrounds the foot. The base is
glazed.
Unnumbered (Isfahan) H. 131 in. (34 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 87, 99.
PLATE 55
Ewers (chih-hu) with cylindrical necks; at the tops are bands of thunder pattern, wide zones of
scrolls of pinks, and rows of curiously formless scrolls; above the shoulder on raised flanges are
rows of stylized lotus-petal panels fanning outward above the main areas of mixed floral scrolls,
including chrysanthemum, waterchestnut, peony, camellia, and hibiscus; classic scroll adorns
the feet, and sprays of fungus and flowers appear on the handles. The bases are glazed.
29.439,441 (2 pieces) H. 12i in. (31 cm.). D. 7 in. ( 18 cm.).
Flasks (pien hu) of gourd shape with loop handles; the upper bulbs are decorated with a band of
floral scrolls; below on one side is a rosette surrounded by a band of foliate scroll, and on the
other side the rosette has a Yin-Yang symbol in the center and is framed by a chevron band.
The bases are glazed.
A number of flasks of this type carry the mark of the Hsiian-te period written in a horizontal line
below the lip. No doubt this and other unmarked pieces are also datable to that reign.
29.458, 463 (2 pieces) H. lOi in. (26 cm.). W. 6i in. (15.5 cm.). T. 41 in. (11.5 cm.).
Body of a large bulbous bottle of oval section from which the neck has been broken; the body is
covered with floral scrofls; and the base is glazed inside the low broad foot rim.
29.483 H. 12i in. (31 cm.). W. 14 in. (35.5 cm.). T. 9i in. (24 cm.).
Spherical object decorated with six circles of equal size; each circle has a ring of leafy scroll with
blossoms surrounding a central motif of 6-petaled white flower in a stellate frame within a
circle. The eight triangular areas between the large circles are filled with cloud scroHs. One of
the circles is eliminated by an opening nVie in. (4.3 cm.) in diameter which penetrates the
sphere to a depth of 31 in. (9.5 cm.); at a depth of V^q in. (7 mm.) below the surface of the
sphere the cavity widens out to a diameter somewhat larger than that of the opening.
29.455 D. 5 in. (12.5 cm.).
A funnel-shaped object with foliate rim. Inside is a band of floral scroll above a row of formalized
lotus petals; in the bottom are six circular perforations leading down into the pipe below. Out-
side, a series of stylized lotus panels tops the foliate rim; below this is a band of cash-shaped
diaper pattern, and formalized lotus petals cover the lower part.
A fine quality piece of unknown use and of a type not noted hitherto. Painted in a strong dark blue,
it exhibits all the customary characteristics of the early-fifteenth-century wares. The pipe lead-
ing out of the bottom is unglazed and has been broken ofl", and so it is impossible to determine its
original length. As may be seen in the iflustration the Shah 'Abbas mark was cut in two by the
break.
29.485 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 5 in. (13 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See pages 87, 99, 116.
PLATE 55
29.455
PLATE 56
Vase of kuan shape with a band of classic scroll on the neck; four fruit sprays (cherry, grape, litchi,
and persimmon) decorate the shoulder above the main zone of peony scroll; around the base a
row of panels, with their tops set off by a band of shading, frames lotus blossoms mounted on
trefoils.
29.496 H. 8i in. (20.5 cm.). D. lOf in. (27 cm.).
A mei-p'ing vase with four cloud collar points framing lotus blossoms on the shoulder; large peony
scroll on the body; and a very elaborate foliate scroll around the base.
29.415 H. Ill in. (29.5 cm.). D. 7 in. (18 cm.).
These two pieces, both of exceptional quality, are decorated in the same style with outline and pale
wash enhanced by many fine lines, a technique not commonly found on early-fifteenth-century
wares but seen on the "Annamese" blue-and-white of presumably midcentury date (cf. pi. 57).
Perhaps "Interregnum."
Vase of mei-p'ing shape rather coarsely decorated with thunder pattern, lotus scrolls, large peony
sprays, and fern or plantain leaves. Clearly a provincial or private factory piece and difficult
to date.
29.420 H. 101 in. (27 cm.). D. 7i in. (18.5 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 98, 103.
PLATE 56
29.415
29.420
PLATE 57
Dish with flattened rim on which the edge is raised and unglazed; a narrow scroll band decorates the
rim and the cavetto has large lotus scrolls; a border of scalloped petals surrounds the central
design which is a single large peony surrounded by leaves. Outside is a row of stylized lotus
panels. The unglazed base is washed with a chocolate-brown dressing inside the rounded foot
rim. (PI. 141.)
29.143 H. 3i in. (9.5 cm.). D. 171 in. (44 cm.).
Annamese ware, mid-fifteenth century.
See page 103.
29.143
PLATE 58
Dish with plain rim; in the center are two Hons playing with a brocaded ball amid swirling ribbons;
outside are four lions, all running to the left, two brocaded balls, and swirling ribbons. The
base is glazed and shows faint tinges of yellow.
This is one of two dishes with identical decoration but of slightly different sizes.
29.277 H. H in. (3.7 cm.). D. 7 in. (18 cm.).
29.278 H. II in. (4.1 cm.). D 71 in. (19.7 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 108.
29.277
PLATE 59
Dish with plain rim; in the center is a landscape scene showing a prunus tree growing beside a fan-
tastic rock with a crescent moon above; on the left is a fungus and on the right a bamboo. Out-
side are four branches: two prunus and two unidentified. The base is glazed and shows a
faintly yellowish tinge.
29.149 H. II in. (4.5 cm.). D. 8i in. (21.5 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 108.
29.149
PLATE 60
Bowl with slightly flaring rim; decorated inside with the three friends: pine, prunus, and bamboo,
formally painted in a circle. Outside is a garden scene with three scholars and two attendants
and a palace among the clouds. The convex base is glazed and shows a faint yellowish tinge.
In the library of the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art is an album of drawings illustrating
selected porcelains from the collection of Lo Chen-yii; among them is shown a similar bowl
bearing the 6-character mark of the Ch'eng-hua period.
29.341 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 7i in. (18.5 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 109.
PLATE 60
29.341 (four views)
PLATE 61
Bowl with plain rim and steep sides decorated inside with a single floral spray; outside is a band of
trefoils at the rim above a main zone of camellia scrolls; below is a row of stylized lotus-petal
panels. The base is glazed over, and in the center is a patch of thick black enamel roughly 2
inches in diameter on top of the glaze.
29.342 H. 5 in. (12.5 cm.). D. lOi in. (26 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 112, 113.
29.342
PLATE 62
Bowl with slightly flaring rim; inside is a design of crossed vajras in the center; and outside are
dragons with foliate tails each with a lotus spray springing from the tip of its tongue; below is a
trefoil band. The slightly convex base is glazed and shows areas of yellowish tinge.
29.343 H. 31 in. (9.5 cm.). D. 8 in. (20 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 110.
PLATE 62
29.343
PLATE 63
Bowl with slightly flaring rim; decorated inside with two birds on a crabapple bush in a landscape.
Outside are three similar groups in slightly larger size. The glazed base is marked with two in-
terlocking lozenges carelessly drawn in underglaze blue.
29.345 H. 3i in. (9.5 cm.). D. 9 in. (22.5 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 111, 162.
PLATE 63
29.345
PLATE 64
Bowl with slightly flaring rim; decorated inside with a diaper border near the rim and a floral spray
in a circle in the center. Outside are lotus scrolls above a row of stylized lotus-petal panels.
The slightly convex base is glazed.
29.344 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 8 in. (20.5 cm.).
Bowl with slightly flaring rim; on the inside a group of waterweeds decorates the center; and out-
side are fish among lotus and knotweeds. The base is glazed and bears the incised owner's
mark seen on plate 62.
29.378 H. 3^ in. (9.5 cm.). D. 8| in. (22 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 109, 112, 133.
PLATE 64
29.378
PLATE 65
Bowl with slightly flaring rim; the inside is plain, and outside are four fishes on a sea of incised
waves. The base is glazed.
29.349 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 6i in. (17 cm.).
Bowl with plain rim; inside are a fungus scroll and a peach spray in the center; outside are ducks
among lotus above a trefoil band. The base is glazed.
29.375 H. 41 in. (11 cm.). D. 8| in. (22 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See page 112.
29.375
PLATE 66
Bowl with flaring rim; decorated inside with two rows of Tibetan script and in the center a flaming
wheel; outside are five groups of symbols (looking something like lotus flowers backed by palm
fans) amid cloud scrolls. The base is glazed.
29.348 H. 3i in. (9.5 cm.). D. 8f in. (22 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 111, 133.
29.348
PLATE 67
Bowl with plain rim; inside is a fish leaping above waves; outside are four fishes and four plants. The
base is glazed.
29.347 H. 2i in. (6.5 cm.). D. 71 in. (18.5 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See page 113.
PLATE 68
Bowl with plain rim; inside are four fishes among waves and aquatic flora, and in the center a single
fish leaps above the waves toward the sun, which is seen between clouds. Outside are children
playing in a garden. The glazed base is convex.
29.399 H. 2 in. (5 cm.). D. 6i in. (16.5 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See page 113.
29.399
PLATE 69
Drinking vessel of kendi shape with flaring neck and tapering spout; the domed top surrounding the
small hole has a petal design, and on the neck are stiff leaves and pendent trefoils; around the
shoulder, cloud collar points frame white lotus blossoms amid scrolls; the main body and the
spout are covered with lotus scrolls, and around the bottom is a row of trefoils. The base is
unglazed and has a low foot.
The piece lacks the mark of Shah 'Abbas.
29.472 H. 6i in. (16 cm.). D. of body 5i in. ( 15 cm.).
A flask {pien hii) of unusual shape; on the neck are a band of thunder pattern, a row of overlapping
petals and a row of stylized lotus-petal panels, both the latter in pendent position; at the narrow-
ing within the loops of the handles is a row of plantain leaves or ferns; the circumference of the
body is decorated on each side with four phoenixes among lotus scrolls; inside this is a device of
five radiating cloud collar points each framing a blossom amid scrolls and separated one from
another by foliate designs; in the center, in the depression, is a conch with its occupant on a
ground of concentric waves; around the flaring base is a band of small pendent trefoils. Two
hemispherical lugs protrude from the sides, and the broad flat foot is glazed only in the smaU
central depression.
29.459 H. 13^ in. (34 cm.). W. 9i in. (24 cm.). T. 4i in. (11.5 cm.).
Ewer (chih-hu) with squat body and tall thick neck; stiff leaves, fungus scrolls and pendent lotus
panels decorate the neck; the shoulder has cloud collar points framing fungus scrolls and sepa-
rated by beaded pendants; the main body is covered with lotus scrolls above a band of lotus
panels while a row of inverted trefoils surrounds the foot; flame scroUs appear on the spout.
The base is double with a hole in the center of the outer layer, and the latter is unglazed with a
low rim.
29.442 H. Ill- in. (29.5 cm.). D. of body 7i in. ( 18.5 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 116, 118.
PLATE 69
29.459
29.442
PLATE 70
Ewer with restored handle; the shape differs from that of 29.442, but the decoration is similar. The
unglazed base has a low wide foot.
29.437 H. 12i in (32 cm.). D. 7i in. (19.5 cm.).
Basin with flattened rim and straight sides with slight horizontal flange; debased classic scroll on rim;
inside are dense floral scrolls and in the bottom two winged dragons with long forked flames
or tongues protruding from their mouths fly among cloud scrolls; outside are separate cloud
scrolls under the rim, a petal band above the flange, and a dense floral scroll below. The base is
roughly glazed.
29.353 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. Hi in. (30 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 115, 119.
PLATE 70
29.353
PLATE 71
Dish with plain rim; in the cavetto are four phoenixes flying amid lotus scrolls with four blossoms; in
the center is a landscape scene with two spotted deer gamboling under the arching branch of an
overhanging pine; both deer have collars with two dangling Hnks in front; the one on the left,
with a single horn looking somewhat like a fungus, carries a rose spray in its mouth, while that
on the right has two straight horns with prongs and carries a fungus spray in its mouth; above
the latter are two butterflies. The outside is decorated with cloud scrolls among which fly eight
animals (two horses, two does, a lion, a dragon, a ch'i-lin, and a sea monster); below this is a
band of classic scroll.
Drilled in the base is the mark of Qarachaghay.
29.137 H. 2i in. (6.5 cm.). D. 13 in. (33 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 118, 124, 133.
29.137
PLATE 72
Dish with flattened foHate rim decorated with dense foHate scrolls and blossoms; in the cavetto
amid lotus scrolls are eight lotus blossoms each serving as a pedestal for one of the Eight Lucky
Buddhist Symbols; within this is a narrow wave band, and the central area shows a peacock
and a peahen with a rock and a tree peony. Outside are cloud scrolls under the rim, a broad
band of lotus scrolls with nine blossoms and a border of overlapping foliate forms.
29.136 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 18 in. (46 cm.).
Dish with plain rim; in the cavetto is a scroll with what may be intended for fungus and crossed at
intervals by eight feathery sprays; a narrow band of classic scroll surrounds the central design
of three large tree peonies. The outside is decorated with seven lotus blossoms separated by
truncated sections of a scrolling vine.
29.139 H. 2 in. (5 cm.). D. 15|in. (40 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See page 119.
PLATE 72
29.136
29.139
PLATE 73
Dish with flattened rim; inside is a border of classic scroll; the cavetto is decorated with four growing
plants with a horizon line and four smaller plants between; in the middle is a curious composition
centered around a recumbent ch'i-lin with head raised to look back over its shoulder; on the
right is a banana plant, above is a crescent moon; and elsewhere are flames, a threefold scroll,
and four objects that look like crudely drawn auspicious objects. Outside are cloud scrolls
under the rim and lotus scrolls on the cavetto. The unglazed base is deeply recessed within a
broad rounded foot (pi. 141).
29.142 H. 2i in. (6.5 cm.). D. I2i in. (32 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See page 119.
PLATE 73
29.142
PLATE 74
Dish with plain rim; in the cavetto are four large plants with small triple clusters of pine needles be-
tween them on a wavy horizon line; in the center fly two ducks among lotus scrolls with two
blossoms; outside is a lotus scroll with six blossoms. The base is roughly glazed.
Unnumbered (Isfahan) D. I2i in. (31.8 cm.).
Bottle-shaped vase (p'ing); below the lip is a band of stiff leaves, and the neck is decorated with a
network of beaded strings; a band of classic scroll on the shoulder surmounts the main design
of lotus scrolls. The base is glazed and gravelly and carries the mark Ta-ming-nien-tsao in a
double circle in underglaze blue.
29.451 H. 9i in. (23.5 cm.). D. 4| in. (12 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
See pages 114, 120, 133.
PLATE 74
Isfahan
PLATE 75
Large dish with flattened rim. On this are 32 small leafy roundels, and the cavetto is a broad zone
of plain white; in the center a ring of foliate scrolls surrounds a 4-pointed medallion in which is
a square framing an Arabic inscription which may be translated, "Thanks for his goodness."
29.313 H. 4i in. (11.5 cm.). D. 23 in. (58.5 cm.).
Cheng-te period.
See pages 34, 122.
PLATE 75
29.313
PLATE 76
Back of dish on previous plate. Under the rim is a border of stylized fruit motif; the cavetto is cov-
ered with foliate scrolls surrounding eight circles filled with Arabic script; taken all together they
may be translated, "Said the Prophet on whom be peace, 'Man's praise to him who gives should
be increased; ingratitude for favor causes it to disappear' "; on one side just below the rim a
horizontal cartouche frames the 6-character Cheng-te mark. The foot is massive and deeply
undercut (pi. 142).
See pages 34, 122.
PLATE 76
29.313
PLATE 77
Bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a narrow band of Arabic script while a circle with eight lines of
similar script occupies the center. Outside are four circles each framing an Arabic text, and
between these are cloud scrolls; below is a row of lotus panels. On the glazed base is the 6-
character mark of the Hsiian-te period.
29.346 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 7i in. (18.5 cm.).
Early sixteenth century.
See page 123.
PLATE 77
29.346 (three views)
PLATE 78
Dish with plain rim. The cavetto is decorated with a large floral scroll; inside a narrow band of
classic scroll is the central landscape scene showing a rock and tree peonies. Outside is a broad
zone of scroUing peonies above a band of classic scroll. The unglazed base is shghtly convex
and the paste has a brownish iron-red surface with no glaze. The foot rim is large and deeply
undercut (pi. 142).
29.131 H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 20 in. (51 cm.).
Similar dish with related decoration; a peacock stands beside the rock amid peony scrolls in the
center.
29.132 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 20 in. (51 cm.).
About 1500.
See page 124.
PLATE 78
29.131
29.132
PLATE 79
Vase of kuan shape with four small loop handles on the shoulder. Floral scrolls decorate the neck
and shoulder; the main zone has two dragons with bifurcated tails and spindly 4-clawed chicken-
like feet amid what are presumably clouds and waves; a floral pattern surrounds the base. The
crudely finished base is splashed with glaze.
29.512 H. 14 in. (35.5 cm.). D. 11 in. (28 cm.).
Sixteenth century.
Large vase of kuan shape. Around the shoulder are pendent jeweled strings, and the whole body is
covered with scrolling lotuses above a row of stylized lotus petals. The 6-character mark of
Chia-ching appears in a glazed circle in the center of the unglazed base.
29.515 H. about 19| in. (50 cm.).
Chia-ching period.
Similar vase. On the shoulder is a band of floral scroUs, and the main design consists of a single
large 5-clawed dragon amid cloud scrolls flying above rocks and waves; below is a band of
formal foliate scrolls. The 6-character Wan-li mark appears in a horizontal line on the neck.
This is one of a group of five kuan similarly decorated; the other four, 29.514, 29.516, 29.518 and
29.519, all carry the 6-character Chia-ching mark.
29.520 H. about 21 in. (53 cm.).
Wan-li period.
See pages 34, 125, 126.
PLATE 80
Bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a pine tree twisted into the form of the character shou; outside are
two pines, a prunus, and a bamboo similarly twisted into the forms of Chinese characters. On
the base is the 6-character Chia-ching mark poorly written. The foot rim is broken.
29.364 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 6i in. (16 cm.).
Chia-ching period.
See page 126.
PLATE 80
29.364 (four views)
PLATE 81
Dish with flattened rim; border of squirrels and birds among grapevines; plain cavetto and central
design of a deer and a crane in a landscape; outside are floral scroUs under the rim, and on the
cavetto five roundels each showing a styHzed flying crane among clouds reserved in white on a
blue ground. Six-character Chia-ching mark in underglaze blue.
29.262 H. 2i in. (6.5 cm.). D. 1 H in. (30 cm.).
Chia-ching period.
See page 126.
PLATE 81
29.262
PLATE 82
Dish with flattened foliate rim. Inside is a fungus scroll border surrounding a plain cavetto and two
lions with streamers and a brocaded ball in the center. The fungus scroll is repeated outside the
rim and the cavetto is decorated with seven circles each framing a flying horse with flames. The
undercut foot carries a simple scroll pattern. Under the convex base is the very crudely written
mark Ta-ming-chia-ching-nien-tsao.
29.140 H. 2i in. (6.5 cm.). D. 12i in. (31 cm.).
Chia-ching period.
See page 126.
PLATE 82
29.140
PLATE 83
Bowls with plain rims; inside are fungus scroll borders, four floral sprays around the sides, and
single fruit sprays in the centers. On the outside are landscape scenes with bamboos and banana
trees above borders of styhzed lotus panels. The bases are glazed and carry the 6-character
marks of the Wan-H period.
Two bowls from this group of nine are shown to illustrate the variations that may occur when the
same design is drawn by different hands.
29.354-362 (9 pieces) H. 41 in. (12 cm.). D. 9i in. (20 cm.).
Wan-H period.
See pages 125, 127.
29.362
PLATE 84
Bases of the two bowls on the previous plate. The two marks may have been written by different
hands or by the same hand using a more heavily charged brush in one case than in the other.
See page 127.
29.355
29.362
PLATE 85
Bowl with flaring rim. Decorated inside with lotus scrolls and in the center a crossed device and
four cloud collar forms. Outside are a diaper border with swastikas, a band of lotus scrolls and
a row of lotus panels below. The base is glazed and carries the 6-character mark of the Wan-li
period.
29.369 H. 21 in. (6.5 cm.). D. 7 in. (17.5 cm.).
Wan-li period.
See pages 125, 127.
PLATE 85
29.369
PLATE 86
Vase of mei-p'ing form. On the shoulder six cloud collar points frame floral sprays and are separated
by auspicious objects; the main design is a landscape with figures; below this is a band of formal
blossoms, and a row of extremely stylized inverted lotus panels surrounds the bottom. The un-
glazed base is rough with low rounded rim. The 6-character mark of the Wan-li period sur-
rounds the upper shoulder.
29.402 H. 25i in. (64 cm.). D. 12i in. (31 cm.).
29.405 H. 20 in. (51 cm.). D. 9| in. (25 cm.).
Wan-li period.
Vase of gourd shape (hu-lu); over-all decoration of shou characters in circles and in diamond-
shaped lozenges. Four circular medallions on the upper section frame flowering trees with their
trunks contorted into shou form; and in the medallions on the lower section the same has been
done with the pine trunk in a group of the three friends. A band of stylized lotus panels sur-
rounds the bottom. The unglazed base is concave in shape, and the coarse clay has gravel
adhering.
The body of this vessel is joined horizontally in three places.
29.477 H. 22 in. (56 cm.). D. lOi in. (27.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
Spherical object on a high spreading foot. On the top are nine perforations, one of which is filled
with glaze, surrounded by the remains of a standing rim of some kind. The main decoration
shows a landscape scene with figures, a crane, and a palace among clouds; inverted lotus panels
surround the base. The mark Hsiian-te-nien-tsao is crudely written in underglaze blue under
the base.
29.456 H. 51 in. (13.5 cm.). D. 5i in. (13 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 125, 127, 128.
29.402
29.477
PLATE 87
Bowl with plain rim. Decorated outside with a border of flying horses and cloud scrolls, birds on
fruiting trees and a band of classic scroll at the foot. The base is glazed and carries the mark
fu-kuei-chia-ch'i in a square.
This is one of a group of five bowls of the same size and having the same mark. One has a flaring
rim and all have typical Chia-ching and Wan-U decoration (29.370-374).
29.371 H. 6i in. (16.5 cm.). D. 131 in. (35 cm.).
Bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a diamond diaper border, and in the center a circle with a floral
spray and insects. Outside are birds on pomegranate trees above a styUzed scroll. The 6-
character Hsiian-te mark appears on the base in underglaze blue.
29.377 H. 4i in. (11 cm.). D. 91 in. (24.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 128.
PLATE 87
29.377
PLATE 88
Bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a border of blue rectangles surrounding four cranes amid clouds;
outside are prunus branches, dragonflies, and a crescent moon. The base is glazed.
29.387 H. 2i in. (8.5 cm.). D. 91 in. (25 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 128.
PLATE 89
Bowl with plain rim. Decorated inside with three encircling lines crudely incised in the glaze; out-
side are cloud scrolls and three medallions framing lotus blossoms on diaper grounds. The base
is glazed and carries the mark fu-kuei-chia-ch'i; the foot rim is deep, thin, and undercut.
29.397 H. 3i in. (8.5 cm.). D. 6i in. (16 cm.).
Dish with plain rim. Inside is a border of waves with six rocks and seahorses and 12 cloud scrolls;
in the center a ch'i-lin is shown in a seascape; above are flames and a rocky landscape over a
layer of clouds; outside are flowers and cloud scrolls. The glazed base has sand adhering and
bears the 6-character mark of the Hsiian-te period.
29.314 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 13i in. (34.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim. Inside is a border with two groups of rocks and flowering branches
and two tufts of grasses; the plain white cavetto encircles a central scene of unusual formality;
in the foreground is a terrace paved with elaborately decorated tiles and bounded by a balus-
trade with statues of lions crouching on the two posts; in front of these stands a large richly
ornamented jar in which grow the three friends: the pine, the prunus, and the bamboo. The
trunk of the pine is twisted into the form of the character shou, "longevity." Outside are floral
sprays and birds on branches.
This dish is one of a group of five with various related designs executed in a similar style.
29.265 H. about 2 in. (5 cm.). D. about 11 in. (28 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 128, 129.
PLATE 89
29.314
29.265
PLATE 90
Dish with flattened foliate rim. Inside is a styHzed border above a white cavetto with carved radial
fluting which surrounds a roughly drawn bush with three flowers on an arching horizon. Out-
side are coarse scrolls under the rim and the sides are coarsely and deeply incised. On the
roughly glazed base is a crude swastika in underglaze blue placed off center in a double circle.
The Shah 'Abbas mark is in abbreviated form.
29.279 H. U in. (4 cm.). D. 8i in. (21 cm.).
Dish with slightly flaring rim. Inside are three birds on the wing and three prunus sprays around a
formal central design of a peach tree in the form of a shou character growing in a pot; outside
are three more prunus sprays, two butterflies, and a round dot; a simple scroll band adorns the
foot. On the base is a 6-character Hsiian-te mark poorly written.
29.150 H. 2 in. (5 cm.). D. 9i in. (25 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 129.
PLATE 90
29.279
29.150
PLATE 91
Dish with plain rim. The cavetto is plain, and in the center is a landscape with five deer (possibly
Pere David's deer) and a tortoise in the water at the left. Outside are birds on branches and a
scroll band around the foot. The 6-character Chia-ching mark appears on the glazed base.
29.148 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 13i in. (35 cm.).
Chia-ching period.
Dish with plain rim. Four flowering branches and four insects decorate the cavetto; and in the
center is a landscape scene divided by a vertical waterfall; drinking from the river below are a
pai-ts'e on the left and an elephant on the right; above are branches of pine and bamboo.
Outside are four squirrel and melon groups above a scroll band. The base is glazed.
29.147 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 14 in. (35.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 129, 138.
9.148
9.147
PLATE 92
Dishes with plain rims. Inside each is a border of four dragons amid fungus scrolls, and a plain
white area surrounds the central scene of a landscape with deer. Outside is a border of prunus
above various plant forms. The glazed bases are convex and show varying amounts of radial
chatter; the foot rims are sharply cut.
29.228-233 (6 pieces) H. 2i in. (5.5 cm.). D. 12 in. (30.5 cm.).
Dish with plain rim. Inside is a border of landscape; a broad band of white encircles the central
landscape scene in which are two deer and a flying bat; outside are fruit and flower sprays. The
base is glazed.
29.238-239 (2 pieces) H. 31 in. (8.5 cm.). D. 14 in. (35.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened foliate rim. On the rim is a border of river landscape scenes; the cavetto is plain
white, and the central scene shows a garden with rocks, trees, flowering plants, a golden pheas-
ant, mandarin ducks, a flying goose and doves(?), and pavilions. Outside are flower sprays and
birds on branches. The base is unglazed and the foot rim undercut.
29.240-242 (3 pieces) H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 17 in. (43.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 129, 130.
PLATE 92
PLATE 93
Dish with plain rim. Inside the rim is a narrow border of scrolling flowers and foliage; a broad white
cavetto encircles the central landscape scene. Outside are ornamental cloud scrolls and flying
cranes. The unglazed base shows wheel marks and radial chatter, and the strong foot is under-
cut. (PI. 142.)
There are two of these dishes, both drawn with beautiful clarity unusual in wares of this class; the
blue is strong and clear anticipating the quality which characterizes the blue of K'ang-hsi. The
landscape compositions are reminiscent of those executed in red and green enamels on the coarse
Swatow wares, but both the potting and the clay itself are far superior on these blue-and-white
dishes.
29.205-206 (2 pieces) H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 17| in. (45 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 130.
PLATE 94
Dishes with plain rims. Inside are borders of white herons amid lotus plants; broad plain white bands
encircle central landscape scenes. Outside are either peach sprays or grape sprays and insects;
scroll bands surround the feet. The unglazed bases show wheel marks and radial chatter, and in
some cases gravelly adhesions; the foot rims are undercut.
29.207-213 (7 pieces) H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 171 in. (45 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 131.
29.208
PLATE 95
Deep bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a border of lotus and cranes with a landscape in the center; a
landscape scene covers the outside. The base is glazed and the foot rim is deep, thin, and
undercut.
29.401 H. 4in. (10 cm.). D. 5| in. ( 15 cm.).
Bowl with plain rim. Decorated with landscape scenes inside and out. The base is glazed.
29.376 H. 41 in. (11 cm.). D. 8| in. (22 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 131.
PLATE 96
Vessel in the shape of a bucket with two vertical loop handles issuing from monster mouths. The
upper section shows a landscape scene with Pere David's deer in a fenced park, and below a
horizontal ring in very slight relief are fish leaping among waves. The flat top rim is unglazed
as is the upper three-quarters of an inch on the inside; below this very even line the interior is
glazed. The base is somewhat coarsely made and is glazed within the slightly rounded foot rim.
29.481 H. 11 in. (28 cm.). D. II in. (28 cm.).
Bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a scene with a hawk perched on a rock. On the outside is a land-
scape scene with three hares, one of which is being attacked by a hawk. Under the base is a
6-character Ch'eng-hua mark.
29.367-368 (2 pieces) H. 3i in. (9.5 cm.). D. Si in. (22 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages II, 131.
PLATE 96
29.367
PLATE 97
Four drinking vessels of kendi shape characterized by tall flaring necks and spouts of various shapes.
Two are in the usual form with low foot rims and glazed bases; those shaped like a frog and an
elephant have flat unglazed bases. The waterfowl on 29.466 may possibly be teal; and all the
decorative motifs are typical of the period.
Number 29.464 lacks the Shah 'Abbas mark; the neck and off side have been broken and restored,
and the vaqjnameh may have been on the latter. The lip of 29.465 is also broken and restored.
29.466 H. 6in. (15 cm.).
29.445 H. 7 in. (18 cm.).
29.465 H. 61 in. (17 cm.).
29.464 H. 61 in. (17 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 118, 132.
PLATE 98
Four ewers variously decorated with floral designs and phoenixes. The teardrop medallions on the
sides of 29.433 are of unglazed biscuit molded in openwork relief over the proper body of the
ewer; they show two peafowl by a rock among peonies. This piece has the 6-character Hsiian-
te mark in blue under the base. The other three have 4-character Hsiian-te marks, and on
29.434 and 29.436 the verb is tsao. The bulbous mouth topped by a low rim on 29.434 is
unusual. Two pieces have been broken, and the handle of one is restored.
29.433-436 H. all 8i-9 in. (22.5-23 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 133.
PLATE 98
29.435
29.436
PLATE 99
Ewer (chih-hu) with stiff leaves rising above a narrow floral band on the neck, and lions amid floral
scrolls on the base. The entire body is covered on each side with the well-known curious
design of a recumbent ch'i-lin at the foot of an elaborate monumental fountain. The high foot
is covered over at the bottom leaving a low rim (pi. 142). The 6-character Hsiian-te mark
appears on the glazed base.
29.423 H. 121 in. (32 cm.). D. 6i in. (16 cm.).
Ewer (chih-hu) with thunder pattern, stiff leaves, and floral designs with insects on lip and neck and
a prancing ch'i-lin in a landscape as the main design. Floral sprays decorate the foot which is
hollow underneath and glazed. Under the base of the vessel itself is the mark of a white hare on
a blue ground.
29.424 H. 13i in. (34 cm.). D. 6i in. ( 16 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 87. 134, 136.
PLATE 99
PLATE 100
Dish with flattened fohate rim. Twelve segments divide the rim and cavetto into lotus panel frames,
and these contain six fungus sprays with auspicious objects and six flower sprays with insects in
alternating order. In the center six cranes fly amid cloud scrolls around a circle in which is a
hexagram. Outside are two birds on branches beneath auspicious objects. The glazed base is
slightly convex with traces of sand adhering.
Number 29.172 lacks the mark of Shah 'Abbas.
29.172-173 (2 pieces) H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 17i in. (44.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened decagonal rim. Inside are 10 panels including both rim and cavetto which frame
lotus plants and rose sprays, and in one case two magpies. The central area frames a landscape
scene with two deer and two magpies. Outside are plants and flower sprays.
29.264 H. 2i in. (5.5 cm.). D. 12i in. (31 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 137, 138.
PLATE 100
PLATE 101
Dish with plain foliate rim. Inside the cavetto are 12 panels framing six compositions of plants and
flowering shrubs each repeated twice; these include peony, azalea, lotus, two varieties of rose,
and crabapple. Four of the scenes include rocks and birds. In the center is a landscape with
five deer. Outside are 12 panels in which peony and rose sprays alternate with birds on
branches; a scroll band surrounds the foot. The glazed base is convex with signs of radial chat-
ter; and the foot rim is high and thin with traces of adhering sand (pi. 142).
29.203-204 (2 pieces) H. 31 in. (8 cm.). D. 13| in. (35 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 137.
29.203
PLATE 102
Dish with plain foliate rim. The cavetto is divided into nine panels framing various decorative motifs
(floral sprays, insects, etc.), and these are separated by beaded pendants; in the center on a
ground of various diaper patterns is a 9-pointed star framing a landscape scene with deer.
Outside are two branching shrubs with a bird on each, and two flying insects. The base is un-
glazed and the foot rim is strong and deeply undercut (pi. 142).
29.153-156 (4 pieces) H. 3i-4 in. (9-10 cm.). D. 18-181 in. (46-48 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 137, 138.
29.154
PLATE 103
Dish with plain foliate rim. The cavetto is divided into 1 1 panels framing floral motifs and separated
by beaded pendants; in the center on a ground of various diaper patterns is a 5-pointed medal-
lion framing a landscape scene with deer. The outside decorations show either deer in pine
forests or birds on branches. The unglazed bases show radial chatter and wheel marks, and the
strong foot rims are deeply undercut.
29.164-167 (4 pieces) H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 21 in. (53 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 137, 138.
PLATE 103
29.164
PLATE 104
Four dishes selected from a group of 53. In patterns and general structure they closely resemble the
two types illustrated on plates 100 and 101; but the decoration shows great variety, and prob-
ably no two are identical in every respect. The diameters range from lOi to 18 inches; the blue
varies from a strong rich purplish tone through pale silvery gray to almost black, and one has
had enamel colors added over the glaze.
29.171 D. 18 in. (46 cm.).
29.178 D. 14 in. (35 cm.).
29.174-175 D. lOi in. (26 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 137, 138.
PLATE 104
29.174
29.175
PLATE 105
Bowl with flaring foliate rim. Inside are a cloud scroll border and a bird on a flowering branch in
the center; the outside is divided into eight vertical panels with alternating flower or fruit sprays
in medallions on diaper ground. Scrolls surround the foot. The base is glazed and has a thin
undercut foot rim. The character fu is in a square underneath.
29.392 H. 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 3i in. (8.5 cm.).
Bowl with fohate rim. The border inside shows a landscape with flaming wheels on a scalloped band;
a landscape occupies the center. Outside is a band of horses flying over waves, and the main
decoration is ten floral sprays. A band of overlapping scalloped petals surrounds the base. The
glazed base shows radial chatter marks, and the foot rim is thin, deep, and undercut.
29.394 H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. Si in. (21 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 138.
PLATE 105
29.394
PLATE 106
Bowl with plain rim. Inside, ducks and aquatic plants surround a central landscape panel; outside
are six medallions framing landscapes and figures, and these are separated by fungus and flower
sprays surmounted by auspicious objects. Stylized lotus panels are below, and a band of de-
based scrollwork surrounds the foot. The base is roughly glazed.
29.379-380 (2 pieces) H. 6i in. (17 cm.). D. 14 in. (34.5 cm.).
Bowl with flaring foliate rim. Inside are six cloud collar ornaments above a row of lotus panels in
underglaze slip surrounding a central circle in which is a recumbent horse and a flame scroll.
Outside are six panels extending halfway down from the rim; these are separated by beaded
pendants, and each frames a flying horse over waves. Below a broad band of plain white is a
row of overlapping petal-like panels. The glazed base shows radial chatter marks, and the foot
rim is high, thin, and undercut.
29.393 H. 21 in. (6.5 cm.). D. 5i in. (14.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 139.
PLATE 106
29.393
PLATE 107
Two bowls and a dish variously decorated with designs involving white and spotted deer, the latter
perhaps representing Sika. In the center of 29.390 the animal is shown in a setting of the three
friends: pine, prunus, and bamboo. All the bases are glazed, and the feet are deep, thin, and
undercut.
29.388 H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. 5i in. (14.5 cm.).
29.390 H. 21 in. (6 cm.). D. Si in (21 cm.).
29.389 H. 4i in. (11.5 cm.). D. Si in. (22.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 138, 139.
PLATE 107
29.389
PLATE 108
Small saucers with flaring foliate rims. The decoration consists of underglaze designs in slip both
inside and out, and in the centers are medallions in underglaze blue framing flowering plants,
auspicious objects, etc.
Four of these small dishes carry the abbreviated mark of Shah 'Abbas.
29.280-285 (6 pieces) H. 1 in. (2.5 cm.). D. 5+ in. (14 cm.).
Covered cup with molded sides; one of three decorated inside with medallions framing various
flowers and objects around central medallions in each of which is a bird on a rock; outside are
panels separated by beaded ornaments and framing landscapes, figures, insects, etc. The covers
are similarly decorated, and the edges are flanged and unglazed to fit the cup rims. Inside the
"feet" of two covers are hare marks, and the third has the character fu in a square.
29.381-386 (3 cups and 3 covers) H. 6i in. ( 15.5 cm.). D. 5i in. ( 14 cm.).
Ewer of octagonal shape; the panels are decorated with floral sprays and on each side a sage in a
landscape; under the base is the mark fu-shou-k'ang-ning in a double square.
29.444 H. 5i in. (14.5 cm.). D. 4i in. (11 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See pages 138, 139.
PLATE 108
29.382,29.386
29.444
PLATE 109
Bottle of hexagonal form; the tall thin neck is decorated with stiff leaves, a band of thunder pattern,
and a broad zone of flowering shrubs and rocks; the body of the vessel has a flower spray and
one of the "hundred antiques" on each side with scroll patterns on the shoulder above and on
the foot below. The high flaring base is glazed inside and carries the mark of the hare under-
neath.
29.468 H. 12i in. (31 cm.). D. 5i in. ( 14 cm.).
Ewer (chih-hu) of hexagonal form decorated with stifi" leaves, a diaper band and flower sprays on
the neck; a trefoil band lies on the shoulder, and the six panels on the sides frame flowers, foliate
scrolls and symbols reserved in white on a blue ground. Flying horses above waves appear on
the high flaring foot. The base is glazed underneath.
29.467 H. IH in. (29 cm.).
Ewer with high foot and handle in the form of a rat; the decoration includes birds on branches, floral
sprays, and on each side two phoenixes worked into medallion form. Under the base is the mark
Ta-ming-nien-tsao.
29.473 H. 61 in. (17 cm.). D. 4i in. (11.5 cm.).
Deep cup on a low flaring foot. Inside the rim is a diaper border and in the bottom is a cloud scroll
in the form of a swastika. The outside of the cup itself is decorated in white reserved on a
blue ground. A diaper border lies above six rows of blossoms, and a row of lotus panels sur-
rounds the bottom; round dots appear on the swelling area above the flaring foot decorated with
pendent stiff leaves. The base is glazed underneath.
29.484 H. 51 in. (14.5 cm.). D. 4i in. (12 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 140.
29.468
29.467
29.473
29.484
PLATE 110
Dish with plain rim. Inside are a scroll border, floral scrolls in the cavetto, and a central design of
a bouquet tied with a fillet; all are executed in fine incised lines. A scroll border above floral
scrolls appears again on the outside, and a band of thunder pattern surrounds the foot. The
base is unglazed and shows tinges of iron red.
This is the plain white version of such standard blue-and-white designs as 29.1-29.20 (pis. 30-31).
29.687, 692 (2 pieces) H. 2| in. (7 cm.). D. \5i in. (40 cm.).
Dish with plain rim. Inside the cavetto is a floral scroll while a 5-clawed dragon decorates the
center; the outside is plain, the base is unglazed, and the surface of the paste shows tinges of
iron red.
The dish illustrated is not one of the two in the Ardebil Collection but a piece with identical decora-
tion in the writer's possession photographed at the Freer Gallery of Art by infrared light to bring
out the hidden design more clearly. It has a gold lacquer repair on the rim.
29.678, 682 (2 pieces) H. 2i in. (6 cm.). D. I3i in. (34 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See page 144.
PLATE 111
Dish with flattened rim slightly raised at the edge; there are remains of overglaze decoration in gold.
The scrolls on the rim and the chrysanthemum design on the outside of the cavetto are clearest;
the rest is rather obscure. The base is unglazed.
29.691 and 29.694 have the mark of Qarachaghay drilled in their bases.
29.691 D. 131 in. (34 cm.).
29.694 D. 14i in. (36.5 cm.).
29.695 D. 151 in. (40 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
See page 144.
PLATE 112
Dish with flattened rim slightly raised at the edge. On the rim are fungus scrolls, floral scroUs dec-
orate the cavetto, and in the center are floral sprays and scrolls, all incised in the paste. The base
is unglazed.
On the base is some writing in ink in what appears to be Uighur script.
29.697 D. 151 in. (39.5 cm.).
Dish with flattened foUate rim and molded cavetto. There is no decoration, and the base is unglazed.
29.679 D. 16 in. (40.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
See page 144.
29.697
29.679
PLATE 113
Bowls of lien-tzu shape. Inside are incised borders of thunder pattern above floral scrolls; outside
are scroll borders above two rows of petals. The bases are glazed.
The petal design is emphasized by the thickening of the pale bluish glaze in the incised outlines.
Occasional bubbles in this area have burst, and dirt in the resulting pits accounts for the dotted
effect seen in the reproduction. No. 29.718 has a plain gold band about three-quarters of an
inch wide applied around the outside of the rim.
29.717-718 (2 pieces) H. 4 in. (10 cm.). D. 8i in. (20.5 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
Bowl with plain flaring rim. There is no decoration, and the base is unglazed.
29.702 H. 4i in. (10.5 cm.). D. lOi in. (26 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
Bowl with steep sides and plain rim. Incised in the paste inside is a single chrysanthemum spray, and
outside are four fruit sprays over a row of lotus petals. In every respect this is the plain white
counterpart of blue-and-white bowl No. 29.340 (pi. 49).
29.716 H. about 3i in. (9 cm.). D. 6i in. (17.5 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
See pages 50, 144, 145.
PLATE 114
Bowl with plain rim. Outside are flying horses with cloud scrolls and waves incised in the paste. The
glazed base carries the mark fu-kuei-chia-ch'i in underglaze blue; the foot is deep and undercut.
29.772 H. 61 in. (16 cm.). D. 131 in. (34 cm.).
Sixteenth century.
Bowl with slightly flaring rim. There is no decoration; and the base carries the 6-character mark of
the Hung-chih period in underglaze blue.
A bowl of this same type in the Isfahan group bears the incised mark of Jahanglr as well as the Shah
'Abbas mark and the owner's sign often seen on wares of this period.
29.711, 712, 714 (3 pieces) H. 31 in. (9 cm.). D. 7| in. (20 cm.).
Hung-chih period.
Bowl with steep sides. Inside and out are floral patterns incised in the paste. The base is unglazed
and the foot rim is squarely cut.
27.703, 774 (2 pieces) H. 5i in. ( 14 cm.). D. 13| in. (34 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
See pages 56, 57, 145, 146, 147.
PLATE 114
29.714
29.774
PLATE 115
Dish with slightly flaring rim. No decoration. The convex base is finely glazed and carries the 6-
character mark of the Ch'eng-hua period in underglaze blue. At one side is incised the undeci-
phered owner's mark.
Five similar dishes 8t in. (21.5 cm.) in diameter have the 6-character Hung-chih mark (29.658-
662), two of them have the same owner's mark; and number 29.656, 7 in. (18 cm.) in di-
ameter, has the 6-character Cheng-te mark and the owner's mark as well. On all seven of
these pieces the mark of Shah 'Abbas is incised with unusual beauty and precision.
29.657 D. li in. (20 cm.).
Ch'eng-hua, Hung-chih, and Cheng-te periods.
Vase of mei-p'ing shape with incised fruit sprays on the shoulder, floral scrolls around the body, and
flower sprays below. The unglazed base has a low flat foot rim.
These mei-p'ing are the plain white counterparts of such blue-and-white pieces as 29.409 (pi. 51);
another one, 29.723, is exactly the same as 29.413, with pendent lotus panels above and stif?
leaves below. All are very thin and lightly potted.
29.719-722 (4 pieces) H. 91-101 in. (24.5-27.5 cm.). D. 5i-7i in. (15-18 cm.).
Early fifteenth century.
Vase of kuan shape with no decoration. The unglazed base has a low rounded rim.
29.773 H. IH in. (30 cm.). D. 12i in. (31 cm.).
Sixteenth century.
See pages 146, 147.
PLATE 116
Dish with slightly flaring rim. The inside is plain; outside are fishes and aquatic plants painted in
dark cobalt blue under an even turquoise glaze. On the base is the 4-character mark of the
Cheng-te period in underglaze blue.
29.769 D. 8i in. (21 cm.).
Cheng-te period.
Dish with plain rim. Inside are two lions amid streamers, and a central roundel; outside are birds on
branches, flying birds, and dragonflies all in colored enamels. On the base is the 6-character
mark of the Hung-chih period. The dish is broken on one side.
29.761-762 (2 pieces) D. Si in. (21.5 cm.).
Hung-chih period.
See page 149.
PLATE 116
PLATE 117
Dish with slightly flaring rim. Inside bamboos, a stylized rock, a peach tree, and butterflies in red,
yellow, and green enamels; outside is the same design repeated all around.
29.763 D. 8 in. (20 cm.).
Late fifteenth century.
Bowl with slightly flaring rim. Inside is a ch'i-Un with flames and auspicious objects. Outside are
four animals: a lion, a pai-ts'e, a ch'i-lin and an elephant each with a disk on its back inscribed
with the character fu in gold. All decoration is in enamel colors. On the base is the 6-character
mark of the Cheng-te period in underglaze blue, and beside it the undeciphered owner's mark
is cut in the glaze.
29.764 H. 3i in (8 cm.). D. 7 in. (18 cm.).
Cheng-te period.
See page 149.
PLATE 117
29.764
PLATE 118
Dish with plain rim. Inside is a wave border over a white cavetto; surrounded by a row of standing
trefoils is the central decoration of landscape and figures, all executed in red, green, and yellow
enamels. On the convex base the 6-character Chia-ching mark is incised in the paste, and the
mark Hsiian-te-nien-tsao is written on top of this in overglaze iron red.
The mark is like that illustrated in TOCS 25 (1949-1950), plate 3a.
29.759 H. 21 in. (6 cm.). D. 15 in. (38 cm.).
Chia-ching period.
Bowl with flaring rim. Inside is a fish in underglaze red surrounded by underglaze blue waves in
which the white areas have been colored with overglaze red; around this central medallion are
aquatic plants in overglaze enamels. Outside are four underglaze red fish on white areas re-
served in a wave ground of underglaze blue and overglaze iron red. Under the base is the 6-
character mark of the Hsiian-te period in underglaze blue.
29.758 H. 31 in. (8.5 cm.). D. 7i in. (18.5 cm.).
Late sixteenth century.
See page 150.
PLATE 119
Dish with flaring foliate rim. Inside is a single 3-clawed dragon executed in white slip and incised in
detail against a ground of dark blue glaze. The base is unglazed and is joined by the foot rim in
a curve.
29.747 D. 18 in. (46 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 151.
PLATE 120
Vessel in the shape of a recumbent cat; a tall pipe with flanged rim and base rises from the back,
and a tube is seen through the hollow eyes and ends in the mouth supported between the tip
of the tongue and the upper teeth. Glazed in a mottled watermelon shade of green, which runs
over the edges of the flat base.
No number. H. 8 in. (20 cm.).
Date uncertain but before 1611.
See pages 151, 152.
PLATE 120
PLATE 121
Celadon dish with flattened foliate rim with raised edge. The cavetto is fluted radially, and in the
center is a single freely incised lotus blossom. The outside is plain, the foot rim is rounded and
glazed over, and an unglazed ring of reddish biscuit is seen on the base.
29.617 H. 3 in. (7.5 cm.). D. 17 in. (43 cm.).
Celadon dish with flattened rim decorated inside with incised scrolls; in the cavetto are lotus blos-
soms with foliage, and in the center is a single lotus plant. The outside is plain, the foot rim is
thick, rounded, and glazed over, and there is an unglazed ring of reddish biscuit on the base.
29.619 H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. 18i in. (47 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
See page 155.
29.617
29.619
29.619
PLATE 122
Celadon dish with plain flattened rim. Incised scrolls appear on the rim; the cavetto is plain and
incised in the center is a single large tree peony. The outside is plain. The rounded foot rim is
glazed over, and just inside this is an even ring of unglazed biscuit.
The quality of this celadon is unsurpassed among wares of the period. The color is a rich even sea-
green; the potting is beautifully done, and the paste is fine-grained and very light gray, almost
white.
29.621 H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 17i in. (44 cm.).
Fifteenth century.
See page 155.
PLATE 123
Celadon dish with plain rim. The cavetto is decorated with peony scrolls reserved in relief by virtue
of the fact that the background around them has been cut away. In the center is an allover
diaper pattern of interlocking circles giving the effect of the cash motif. The outside is plain;
the foot rim is rounded on the outside, cut vertical on the inside and glazed over. On the base
is a broad uneven ring of reddish unglazed biscuit.
The glaze is even, glossy, dark olive-green; the dish is thinly potted, and the execution of the design
is of excellent quahty.
29.626 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 21| in. (55 cm.).
Celadon dish with plain rim. In the cavetto is a boldly incised lotus scroll, and in the center a diaper
pattern based on diagonals. The foot rim is glazed over, and there is a ring of unglazed reddish
biscuit on the base.
29.630 H. 2i in. (7 cm.). D. I9i in. (49 cm.).
Celadon dish with plain rim. In the cavetto is a freely incised wave pattern, and the bottom has a
diaper pattern on a square plan. The foot rim is glazed over, and there is a ring of unglazed
reddish biscuit on the base.
29.631 H. 21 in. (7 cm.). D. 171 in. (44 cm.).
Fourteenth or fifteenth century.
See page 155.
PLATE 123
29.630
29.631
PLATE 124
Celadon dish with flattened rim and raised edge. The cavetto is fluted radially, and in the center is
a lotus spray impressed in the clay with a mold. The foot is small in diameter but very thick,
sloping outside and vertical inside; the base is completely glazed and the broad rim is bare.
All seven dishes with feet of this type in the collection lack the Shah 'Abbas mark; both stamped and
incised designs decorate the centers; all are of excellent quality.
29.609-10, 29.612-13, 29.622-24 (7 pieces) H. 3i in. (8 cm.). D. 131 in. (34 cm.).
Fourteenth or fifteenth century.
See page 155, n. 316.
PLATE 124
PLATE 125
Celadon bowl with plain flaring rim. A floral spray incised inside is the only decoration. The bowl
is very thickly potted; the foot rim is glazed over and there is a ring of unglazed reddish biscuit
on the base.
29.646 H. 3i in. (8.5 cm.). D. 6| in. (17.5 cm.).
Fourteenth or fifteenth century.
Celadon tripod of lien shape; cylindrical body decorated with floral scrolls applied in relief; one
foot missing; double bottom, the inner part of which rises to a rounded protuberance inside the
vessel (pi. 142).
29.655 H. 6i in. (16 cm.). D. 7i in. (19 cm.).
Fourteenth or fifteenth century?
See page 156.
29.646
29.655
PLATE 126
Celadon bowl with contracted mouth and slightly flaring lip. The inside is plain; outside is a band
of thunder pattern above a row of lotus panels, both incised in the clay. The small base has
been broken and ground off flat showing a hght gray biscuit with black specks.
It is possible that the original base may have been high and flaring like a stem. If that was the case,
the vessel must have resembled the blue-and-white stem bowl at Oxford.
29.647 H. 3i in. (9.5 cm.). D. (at lip) 9i in. (25 cm.). D. (max.) lOi in. (26 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 156.
PLATE 126
29.647
PLATE 127
Celadon bowl with plain rim. Inside is an incised formal wave pattern surrounding a central floral
spray in low relief which appears to have been executed by means of a stamp. Outside is an
incised cloud border above scrolling lotus plants. The base is glazed except in a circular recessed
hole in the center and on the inner side of the foot rim.
This bowl lacks the mark of Shah 'Abbas.
29.649 H. 5i in. ( 13 cm.). D. I2i in. (31 cm.).
Fifteenth century?
See page 156.
PLATE 127
PLATE 128
Celadon bowl with foliate rim. The sides are radially fluted inside and out; and in the center is a
lotus blossom medallion stamped in relief. The base has a recessed circular hole in the center
and is entirely glazed over inside the foot rim which reveals an iron-red surface.
29.651 H. 4i in. (10.5 cm.). D. 13 in. (35 cm.).
Fourteenth or fifteenth century.
See page 157.
PLATE 128
29.651 (three views)
PLATE 129
Celadon vase with a baluster body, tall neck, and flaring mouth. The neck is fluted horizontafly, and
the body is decorated with lotus scrolls incised in the paste; around the bottom is a row of tall
slender petals carved in low relief. The double base is glazed, and the biscuit foot rim is iron
red.
29.648 H. 16i in. (41 cm.). D. 7| in. (20 cm.).
Celadon vase of bottle shape with flaring lip and decoration carved in relief. Around the neck are
stiff leaves and a band of diaper pattern, and a row of trefoils on the shoulder tops the main
decoration of floral scrolls on the body. Below is a row of lotus panels. The glazed base has
some gravelly adhesions, and the biscuit at the foot rim has an iron-red surface.
29.652 H. 17 in. (43 cm.). D. lOf in. (27 cm.).
Fourteenth or fifteenth century.
See pages 156, 157.
PLATE 129
29.648
PLATE 130
Celadon vase of kuan shape. The only decoration consists of closely spaced deep vertical grooves
all around the vessel. The base is glazed over, and the lip rim and foot rim are unglazed and
show iron-red.
It would appear that when this vessel was made the bottom was first left open; and before firing the
potter placed inside it a shallow dish slightly larger in diameter than the aperture; this was then
covered with glaze which effectively cemented it in place at the time of firing.
29.650 H. 91 in. (24.5 cm.). D. 131 in. (34 cm.).
Celadon vase of kuan shape. Bold floral scrolls are carved in relief all over the body above a row of
stiff leaves. The glazed base is of the same type as above; and the unglazed rim shows an iron-
red surface.
29.654 H. 9i in. (23 cm.). D. 131 in. (34 cm.).
Fourteenth century.
See page 157.
PLATE 131
A-B. Fragments of two fourteenth-century Chinese bowls recovered from Fostat, Egypt, showing
one type of foot commonly used in this period.
Freer Gallery of Art (Study Collection).
See page 60.
C-D. Two views of a Near Eastern blue-and-white pottery dish excavated at Hama, Syria, showing
designs borrowed from the fourteenth-century Chinese repertory.
Before A.D. 1400.
Courtesy of Direction Generale des Antiquites, Musee de Damas.
See pages 70, 71.
PLATE 131
PLATE 132
Three examples of Near Eastern blue-and-white pottery excavated at Hama, Syria, showing designs
borrowed from the fourteenth-century Chinese repertory.
Before A.D. 1400.
Courtesy of Nationalmuseet, K0benhavn.
See pages 70, 71.
PLATE 132
PLATE 133
Twenty-six fragments of Chinese blue-and-white excavated at Kharakhoto, Mongolia.
Fourteenth century.
Photographs by Folke Bergman reproduced by kind permission of Dr. Sven Hedin.
See page 75 for detailed descriptions.
PLATE 133
PLATE 134
Thirty-four fragments of Chinese blue-and-white excavated at Kharakhoto, Mongolia.
Fourteenth century.
Photographs by Folke Bergman reproduced by kind permission of Dr. Sven Hedin.
See pages 76, 77 for detailed descriptions.
PLATE 134
PLATE 135
A. Enameled glass flask. Damascus, c. A.D. 1300.
H. 10 in. (25.5 cm.).
Courtesy of the Toledo Museum of Art, gift of Edward Drummond Libby.
See page 87.
B. Enameled glass basin. Syria, fourteenth century.
D. lU in. (29.2 cm.).
Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
See page 89.
PLATE 135
PLATE 136
A. Brass ewer inlaid with silver. Iran, not later than A.D. 1377. Benaki Museum, Athens,
H. 11 in. (28 cm.).
Photograph courtesy of D. S. Rice.
See page 87, n. 183.
B. Tinned copper ewer with engraved designs. Iran, eighteenth century. Victoria and Albert Museum.
H. 19 iVi6 in. (50 cm.).
Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Crown copyright.
See page 88.
C. Vase of kuan shape. Chinese, late fifteenth century.
H. 7i in. (19 cm.).
Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
See page 115.
D. Flask. Top broken and ground down. Chinese, late fifteenth century.
H. 11 in. (28 cm.).
Courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
See page 116.
PLATE 136
PLATE 137
A. Upper part of a bronze vase with body in the form of a faceted cube. Iran, Seljuk period, A.D.
twelfth century.
H. 3i in. (5 cm.).
Collection of Richard Ettinghausen.
See page 88.
B. Drinking vessel of kendi shape. Buff pottery with emerald-green glaze; 3-clawed dragons in
relief on shoulder. Chinese, T'ang or later.
H. 6 in. (15.3 cm.).
Courtesy of Dr. Leonard B. Cox, Melbourne.
See page 117.
C. Small dish with ch'i-lin design and brown rim; buff stoneware. South China (?), fifteenth or
early sixteenth century.
D. 41 in. (11.8 cm.).
Author's collection.
See page 119.
D. Fragment of a blue-and-white bowl with overlapping petal band and mark similar to that on
29.345 (pi. 63). Chinese, late fifteenth century.
Longest dimension 3 in. (7.7 cm.).
Author's collection.
See page 112.
PLATE 137
PLATE 138
A. Blue-and-white vase of albarello shape. Chinese, early fifteenth century.
H. 8i in. (21.2 cm.).
Freer Gallery of Art (54.117).
See page 89.
B. Vase of mei-p'ing shape; solid dark-blue glaze decorated with 3-clawed dragon in white slip.
Chinese, fourteenth century. (Cf. 29.1 Al, pi. 119.)
H. 13i in. (35 cm.).
Courtesy of the Musee Guimet, Collection Grandidier.
See page 151.
C-D. Blue-and-white dish decorated with Arabic inscriptions and cloud scrolls; outside are incised
concentric waves; 6-character mark of the Hung-chih period.
D. 12i in. (31.7 cm.).
Courtesy of Sir David Home.
See pages 123, 124.
PLATE 138
PLATE 139
Sketches of foot profiles showing some of the variations found among the fourteenth-century dishes
in the collection reproduced on plates 7-22.
See page 60.
PLATE 140
Sketches of foot profiles showing some of the variations found among the early-fifteenth-century
dishes in the collection. It is of particular interest that the first 1 1 profiles on this plate are all
from dishes of the "bouquet pattern" group, of which five examples are illustrated on plates SC-
SI. No. 29. 6S is the great dish with Utchi nuts on plate 41.
29.312 (pis. 42,44)
29.319 (pi. 23)
29.320 (pi. 24)
29.328 (pi. 46)
29.335-40 (pi. 49)
PLATE 141
Sketches of profiles
29.344 (pi. 64)
29.345 (pi. 63)
29.142 (pi. 73)
29.143 (pi. 57)
29.313 (pis. 75-76)
29.131 (pi. 78)
29.164 (pi. 103)
29.154 (pi. 102)
29.172 (pi. 100)
29.203 (pi. 101)
29.205 (pi. 93)
PLATE 142
Sketches of profiles
29.208 (pi. 94)
29.231 (pi. 92)
29.136 (pi. 72)
29.747 (pi. 119)
29.423 (pi. 99)
29.655 (pi. 125)
29.205
li
INDEX
(Plate numbers refer only to subjects mentioned in plate descriptions)
'Abbas I, Shah ("The Great"), x, xi, 5-10, 19,
25,49, 50,51-57, 121, 142.
books of, 8, 13-16.
dedicatory inscription (vaqfnameh), 9, 17,
49, 51, 56, 57, 113, 133, 146, 152, 154,
160; pis. 6, 115.
philanthropic program, 6-8.
porcelains hsted by Jalal ad-Din, 10, 11, 49.
porcelains remaining today, x, 49, 50, 159,
160.
Abd el-Haqq, Selim, 70.
Abderrazak Samarqandi, 2 In.
Abstract scrolls. See under Decoration: Scrolls.
Abu Bakr, 5.
Abu Sa'id, 53.
Abu Talib, 54, 160; pis. 6, 53.
Aftabeh (ewer), 10, 11.
Aga-Oglu, Kamer, 104n., 124, 126.
Agate, 14, 15, 54n.
Akbar Shah, 56, 146.
'Alamglr (Aurangzeb), 57.
Alamut, Castle of, 5.
Albarello, 89; pi. 138A.
Albino dragon, 67, 80.
Aleppo, 69.
Alexander, Sir James, 15.
'AIT, 3,9, 10, 14,51,54.
'All Shan Qarachaghay Khan, 52n.
Altar sets, 60.
Amalik, 21.
Amiot, Father, 22, 23.
Amsterdam, 136.
Amu Darya, 22.
Animals. See under Decoration; Shapes.
Annals of Fou-liang, 41.
Annamese ware, 103, 104, 118n., 119; pis. 56,57.
Aq-qoyunlu, 4.
Aquatic plants and scenes. See under Decoration.
Arab shipping, 24.
Arabia, 5, 24.
Arabic script, 34, 55, 121-124; pis. 75-77, 138
C-D.
Arberry, A. J., xii.
Archaeological finds, references to:
Ch'ing-ho Hsien, 39, 40.
Chii-lu Hsien, 40.
Fostat, 60; pi. 131A-B.
Hama, 69-72; pis. 131C-D, 132.
Kharakhoto, 69, 72-77, 100; pis. 133, 134.
Phihppine Islands, 40, 120n., 126.
Ardebil:
History and location, 3; pi. 1.
Shrine:
Chim-khaneh, 6, 7, 12-17; pis. 2-4.
Dedication of the porcelains, 8-10.
History and description, 6-17.
Library, 8, 13-16.
Ashmolean Museum, 6 In.
Ashpara, 21.
Astarabad, 6, 53.
Aster, 95, 96; pis. 43, 44.
Astrakhan, 3.
Aubin, J., xii, 8n.
Auspicious characters and objects. See under Dec-
oration.
Ayers, John, xii, 60n.
Azalea, 95; pis. 42, 101.
Azerbaijan, 3, 52.
Badakshan, 23n.
Badiyeh (wine cups), 10, 11.
Baghdad, 4.
Bahrami, Mehdi, xii, 8n., lOn., 53n., 54n., 113,
146n.
Balkh, 21.
Baluster vase, 157; pi. 129.
Bamboo. See under Decoration.
Banana, 66, 109, 127; pis. 12-14, 22, 26, 73, 83.
Bands. See under Decoration.
173
174
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Baptistere de St. Louis, 89.
Bardlls, Mount, 8.
Barnham, Denis, 6 In.
Barreto, Padre Belchior Nunes, 135n.
Barrett, D. E., 122n.
Barsin, Miss, xii.
Barthold, W., 154n.
Basin, 88, 112n., 119; pis. 70, 135B.
Bat, 130; pi. 92.
Battuta. See Von Battuta.
Beaded strings or pendants. See under Decora-
tion.
Beal, S., 117n.
Beasts, 137.
Bee, 68, 137; pi. 26.
Beh-bood Khan, 53n.
Behbud, 53, 54; pis. 6, 49, 53.
Behbut-Beg (variant of Behbud), 53.
Bellan, L-L., 8.
Benaki Museum, 87n.; pi. 136A.
Bergman, Folke, 72n., 74; pis. 133, 134.
Beveridge, A. S., 54n.
Bibi Fatima, 3.
Birds. See under Decoration.
Bird-shaped vessel, 133.
Blruni, 19.
Blackberry lily. See under Decoration.
Black enamel, 113; pi. 61.
Bloxam Collection, 128.
Blue-and-white:
Annamese, 103, 104, 118n., 119; pi. 56, 57.
Beginnings in China, 38-45,
Evidence for fourteenth-century date, 69-77.
Japanese, 34n.
Physical characteristics, 59, 60, 84, 108, 123.
Quality of the blue, 65, 84, 108.
Shapes, 60-65, 85-89, 116-118. See also
Shapes of porcelains.
Shards, 39, 40, 60, 70, 74-77.
Style of decoration:
Early fifteenth century, 89-100, 141,
142.
Fourteenth century, 65-69, 141.
Hung-wu, 77-81.
Kraakporselein, 136-140.
Late fifteenth century, 107-120, 142.
Mid-fifteenth century (Interregnum),
101-105.
Blue-and-white — continued
Style of decoration — continued
Sixteenth century, 121-142.
Summary of development, 141-142.
Transition wares, 34n., 132n., 141.
White on blue, 65, 67, 68, 96; pis. 16-
23.
Blue wares, 151.
Bluett, Edgar E., 40, 144n.
Bodleian Library, 8.
Bockler, George Andreas, 135n.
Books in decoration, 139.
Books of Shah 'Abbas, 8, 13-16.
Bottle-shaped vases. See under Shapes.
Boucher (or Bouchier), Guillaume, 135n.
Bouquet patterns. See under Decoration.
Bowls. See under Shapes.
Boxer, C. R., 57, 135n.
Box-shaped vessels, 121.
Brankston, A. D., 83n., 85n., 109, 11 In., 146n.
Brass mounting, pi. 53.
Bretschneider, E., 22n., 23.
British Museum, 8, 61n., 63, 119, 127n., 128n.,
140n., 15 In.
Bronze, Chinese, 87, 90.
Brown dressing on base, pi. 57.
Brown wares, 151, 159, 160.
Browne, Edward G., 3n.
Brush rests, 121.
Bruyn, Cornehs de, ix.
Bucket shape, 131; pi. 96.
Buddhist symbols, 110, 111; pis. 23, 72.
Bulbul, 97, 111.
Burlington House Exhibition, Chmese art, 95n.,
151n.
Persian art, 17, 54n.
Burrell Collection, 80.
Bushel], Stephen W., 27, 28, 30, 31, 36, 42, 43.
Butterfly, 118, 128, 130, 137, 149; pis. 71, 90,
117.
Caliphs of the Sunnis, 5.
Calystegia hederacea, pis. 43, 44.
Cambaluc (Pekmg), 21.
Camellia. See under Decoration.
Cammann, Schuyler, 36n.
INDEX
175
Candlestick, 121, 122n.
Canton, 24.
Carnation, 93; pi. 43.
Carp, 131, 132; pi. 11.
Carved decoration, 155, 157; pis. 90, 129, 130.
Cash pattern, 76, 137, 155; pis. 55, 123.
Caspian Sea, ix, 3, 142.
Cat. See under Shapes.
Cavetto, molded, 85, 143, 144, 156; pis. 33, 35-
37, 41, 112.
Celadon, 42, 49, 61, 62, 70, 76, 153-158; pis.
121-130.
northern, 154.
Ceramic interregnum, 101-105; pis. 47, 49, 51,
56, 57.
Cervidae, 138.
Chaghatay, 22.
Chaldiran, 5.
Chang Hsien-i, 39n.
Ch'ang-ming-iu-kuei, 161.
Chang T'ien-tse, 25n.
Chang Wen-chin, 59.
Chau Ju-kua, 23, 24, 43n.
Chays Khan, 20n.
Chehel Sotun, 56, 57, 159.
Chekiang Province, 30, 153, 157.
Cheng Ho, 24.
Ch'eng-hua, 23, 84, 94, 101, 105, 107-112, 114-
118, 132, 133, 140, 142, 146, 149, 160, 161;
pis. 115, 137D.
Ch'eng-hua marks, 34, 107, 109, 112n., 146, 149,
150; pis. 60, 115.
(apocryphal), 132; pi. 96.
Cheng P'u, 39n.
Cheng-te, 23, 34, 35, 88n., 99, 114, 115, 121-
124, 141, 146, 149, 151; pis. 75, 76, 115-117.
Cheng T'ing-kuei, 27n., 30.
Ch'eng-tsu, 24.
Cheng-t'ung, 23, 102.
Cherry, pis. 42, 47, 56.
Chla-ching, 23, 31, 34, 35, 98, 113-115, 121,
125-128, 132, 140, 141, 147, 150, 151, 160,
161; pis. 79-82, 87, 91, 118.
Chia-ching marks, 35, 125, 126, 127n., 128n.,
129, 135n., 136n., 150, 151, 160; pis. 79-82,
91, 118.
Chiang Ch'i, 41-43.
Chiang-hsi-ta-chih, 3 1 .
Ch'ien (trigram), 138.
Ch'ien-lung, 30, 92.
Chih-cheng, 59.
Chih-hu. See under Shapes.
Chihli Province, 30.
Chih-yiian, 74.
Children, 113; pi. 68.
Ch'i-lin. See under Decoration.
Chi-yu (cyclical year), 41.
Chi Yiian-sou, 43n.
Chin Tatars, 102.
Chinese influence on Near Eastern forms, 45, 87,
88.
Chinese water deer, 138; pi. 100.
Ching-chih (mark), 161.
Ch'ing Dynasty, 28, 30-33, 41, 66, 92, 130, 140,
141, 153.
Ch'ing-ho Hsien, 39, 40.
Ch'ing-hua, 43, 44; pi. 30.
Ch'ing-pai, 42, 43, 62, 86, 143, 158.
Ch'ing-pi-tsang, 32n.
Ching-t'ai, 23, 102.
Ching-te Chen, 30, 38, 39, 43, 89, 103n.
Ching-te-chen-t'ao-lu, 27-30, 36, 41, 42.
Chini-khaneh, 6, 7, 12-17; pis. 2-4.
Chini-serai, 13.
Chinoiserie, 87.
Ch'iu Yiieh-hsiu, 27n.
Chou Li-ching, 39n.
Chronological data, xv.
Chrysanthemum. See under Decoration.
Chu-jan-chih, 23, 43n.
Chu-lu Hsien, 40.
Ch'un (spring), 80n., pi. 9.
Chiin ware, 61, 62, 134.
Chung-t'ung, 74.
Chu Wen-tsao, 27n., 30.
Chu Yen, 27, 28, 30-32, 38, 39, 84n., 101.
Chu Yu, 24.
Chu Yiian-chang, 27.
Clark, Mrs. Alfred, xii, 80, 15 In.
Classic scroll. See under Decoration: Scrolls.
Clavijo, Ruy Gonzalez de, 20, 21, 25.
Cleaves, Francis W., xiii, 73n.
Cloud collar. See under Decoration.
Cloud scroll. See under Decoration: Scrolls.
176
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Clouds. See under Decoration.
Cobalt, 44, 65, 66, 84, 96, 102, 107, 108; pi. 21.
Coffee-brown glaze, 151.
Coins, Iranian, 53, 54.
Colasanti, Arduino, 135n.
Collections of Chinese porcelain:
Ardebil, passim.
Ashmolean Museum, 6 In.
Bloxam, 128.
British Museum, 8, 61n., 63, 119, 127n.,
128n., 140n., 151n.
Burrell, Sir WilUam, 80.
Clark, Mrs. Alfred, xii, 80, 15 In.
Cox, Leonard B., 117; pl. 137B.
Cunliffe, Lord, 94n.
David, Sir Percival and Lady, 79n.
See also Percival David Foundation of
Chinese Art, below.
Eumorfopoulos, G., 62n., 63n., 145n.
Fitzwilliam Museum, 11 On.
Freer Gallery of Art, 65n., 94n., 96n., 98n.,
105n., 109, llOn., 115, 125n.; pl. 138A.
Glasgow Art Gallery, 80.
Grandidier, 151; pl. 138B.
Home, Sir David, 123; pl. 138C-D.
Jakarta Museum, 118.
Lo Chen-yii, pl. 60.
Mallett, Francis, 6 In.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 34, 97n.; pl.
135B.
Musee du Cinquantenaire, 104n.
Musee Guimet, pl. 138B.
Museum of Eastern Art, pl. 126.
Nelson. See William Rockhill Nelson Gal-
lery of Art, below.
Nezu Museum, 95n.
Palace Museum, 127n., 145.
Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art,
34n., 59, 69, 80n., 109, 115, 151n., 154.
Pope, John A., 94n., 112, 119; pis. 110,
137C-D.
Princessehof Museum, 99n., 11 In., 126,
133n.
Riesco, R. F. A., 40.
Sedgwick, Mrs. Walter, xii, 57.
Seligmann, Mrs. C. G., xii.
Topkapu Sarayi Muzesi, 59, 60, 75, 79, 86,
89n., 94n., 95n., 103, 109n., 118, 126,
Collections of Chinese porcelain — continued
133, 135n., 136n., 153, 156. See also
Istanbul.
Victoria and Albert Museum, 56, 57, 68n.,
76, 115, 116, 132n., 151n.; pis. 6, 136
B-C-D.
Walters Art GaUery, 52n., 57, 139n.; pl. 6.
William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art, 34,
62n., 64n., 97n.
Wu Lai-hsi, 80n.
Commelina communis, pis. 43, 44.
Concentric bands, 79.
Concentric pattern, 67.
Concentric waves, 66, 116; pis. 7, 15, 23, 138D.
Conch, 116; pl. 69.
Confucius, 94n.
Conical bowls, 86, 98, 105; pis. 47, 48.
Constantinople, 17.
Constellations, 119.
Coomaraswamy, A. K., 117.
Copenhagen, 70, 139.
Coturnix coturnix, 138.
Counterweight for a mosque lamp, 100.
Cox, Leonard B., 117; pl. 137B.
Coxcomb, 34n., 95, 96; pl. 42.
Crabapple. See under Decoration.
Crane. See under Decoration.
Crapemyrtle. See under Decoration.
Crescent moon, 108, 119, 128; pis. 59, 73, 88.
Cross in a double circle, 162.
"Cuffick character," 14.
CunUffe, Lord, 94n.
Cup, 139, 140; pis. 108, 109.
Cup stand, 79; pl. 29.
Cyclical date, 41,
Damascus, 19, 69.
Dandelion, 95; pis. 42-44.
Danish archaeologists, 69.
David, Abbe Armand (his deer), 131, 132, 138;
pis. 91, 96.
David, Lady, xii, 79n.
David, Sir Percival, xii, 28, 3 in., 32n., 39n., 41n.,
43n., 84n., 133, 134n., 135n.
David Foundation. See under Collections: Perci-
val David Foundation of Chinese Art.
INDEX
Day lily, pis. 42, 44.
Decoration:
Albino dragon, 67.
Animals, recumbent, 119, 139, 151; pis. 73,
106, 120.
Animal's head, 116.
Aquatic plants, 57, 66, 92, 113, 124, 137,
139, 149, 150, 161; pis. 7-9, 36, 42, 64,
66, 106, 116.
Aquatic scenes, 66-68, 71, 74, 75, 112.
Arabic script, 34, 55, 121-124; pis. 75-77,
138C-D.
Aster, 95, 96; pis. 43, 44.
Auspicious characters, 126, 128, 129; pis.
80, 86, 89, 90.
Auspicious objects, 68, 119, 138-140, 149;
pis. 19, 21, 26, 50, 73, 86, 100, 106, 108,
117.
Azalea, 95; pis. 42, 101.
Balustrade, llOn., 129; pi. 89.
Bamboo, 66, 93, 108, 126, 127, 129, 142,
149; pis. 12-14, 22, 24, 26, 40, 44, 47,
59, 60, 80, 83, 89, 91, 107, 117.
Banana, 66, 109, 127; pis. 12-14, 22, 26,
73, 83.
Bands, 68, 79, 112, 116; pis. 34, 105, 106.
Bat, 130; pi. 92.
Beaded strings or pendants, 114, 137, 139;
pis. 69, 74, 102, 103, 106, 108.
Beasts, 137.
Bee, 68, 137; pi. 26.
Birds, 75, 97, 111, 115, 126, 128, 129, 137,
139, 140, 149; pis. 63, 81, 87, 89-92,
100-103, 105, 108, 109, 116.
Biscuit, modeled or molded, 133, 151; pi. 97.
Blackberry lily, 77, 90, 100; pis. 14, 22-24,
54.
Blade forms, 76, 77.
Blossoms. See various flowers by name.
Books, 139.
Bouquet, 71, 75, 92, 93, 144; pis. 30, 31,
110.
Brocaded ball, 57, 108, 149; pis. 26, 58, 82.
Bud, 68, 93; pis. 26, 27, 32, 33, 54.
Buddhist symbols, 110, 111; pis. 23, 72.
Bulbul, 97, 111.
177
Decoration — continued
Butterfly, 118, 128, 130, 137, 149; pis. 71,
90, 117.
Calystegia hederacea, pis. 43, 44.
Camellia, 90, 91, 93, 112, 124; pis. 17, 21,
33-36, 42, 44, 61, 78.
Carnation, 93; pi. 43.
Carp, 131, 132; pi. 11.
Carved, 155, 157; pi. 90, 129, 130.
Cash pattern, 76, 137, 155; pis. 55, 123.
Cervidae, 138.
Cherry, pis. 42, 56.
Chevron band, pi. 55.
Children, 113; pi. 68.
Ch'i-lin, 67, 119, 129, 134, 136; pis. 26, 71,
73, 89, 99, 117, 137C.
Chinese water deer, 138; pi. 100.
Chrysanthemum, 67, 68, 75, 77, 90, 91, 93,
99, 100; pis. 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 26, 33,
34, 36, 40, 42, 111.
Circles, 68, 122, 123, 138; pis. 27, 47, 48,
55, 64, 76, 77, 86, 100, 106, 123.
Classic scroll. See under ScroU, below.
Clematis, pi. 23.
Cloud coUar, 67-69, 75, 115, 116, 139; pis.
16-19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 52, 54, 56, 69,
85, 86, 106.
Cloud scroll. See under Scroll, below.
Clouds, 35, 91, 99, 109, 110, 115, 119,
128-130, 137, 138, 144n., 147; pis. 15,
48, 60, 68, 79, 81, 86, 88, 89.
Commelina communis, pis. 43, 44.
Concentric bands, 79.
Concentric pattern, 67.
Concentric waves, 66, 116; pis. 7, 15, 23,
138D.
Conch, 116; pi. 69.
Constellations, 119.
Convolvulus, pi. 33.
Coturnix cotwnix, 138.
Coxcomb, 34n., 95, 96; pi. 42.
Crabapple, 67, 95, 96, 111; pis. 22, 23, 43,
44, 63, 101.
Crane, 126, 128, 130, 131, 138; pis. 81, 86,
88, 93, 95, 100.
Crapemyrtle, 66, 77, 90, 100; pis. 14, 22, 24,
54.
178
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Decoration — con tinued
Crescent moon, 108, 119, 128; pis. 59, 73,
88.
Dandelion, 95; pis. 42-44.
David's deer, 131, 132, 138; pis. 91, 96.
Day lily, pis. 42, 44.
Deer, 118, 126, 129-132, 138, 139; pis. 71,
81, 91, 92, 96, 100-103, 107.
Diamond, 66, 76, 127, 137, 140, 155, 157;
pis. 8, 9, 13, 15, 26, 86, 87.
Diaper pattern, 66, 76, 89, 127, 128, 137,
140, 157; pis. 25, 26, 55, 64, 85, 87, 89,
102, 103, 105, 109, 123, 129.
Doe, pi. 71.
Dove, 130; pi. 92.
Dragons, 33-38, 67-69, 75, 80, 91, 96-99,
130, 136, 142; pis. 28, 71, 92.
5-clawed, 33-38, 80, 125, 144; pis. 50,
79, 110.
4-clawed, 36, 75, 126; pi. 79.
3-clawed, 34, 75, 80, 96, 151; pis. 15,
45, 48, 53, 119, 137A, 138B.
winged, 110, 119; pi. 70.
with foliate tail, 110, 116; pi. 62.
Dragonfly, 128, 149; pis. 88, 116.
Duck, 57, 66, 74-76, 112, 120, 139; pis. 7,
65,74, 106.
Duckweed, pis. 9, 11.
Eagle, 16 In.
Eelgrass, 66; pis. 9, 11.
Egret, 67; pi. 18.
Elaphurus davidianus, 132.
Elephant, 129, 149; pis. 91, 117.
Fan, 139; pi. 66.
Fern, 95, 105; pis. 43, 51, 56, 69.
Fighting cock, 34n.
Figures (human), 68, 109, 110, 127, 128,
139, 150; pis. 86, 106, 108.
Fish, 66-68, 112, 113, 124, 149; pis. 9, 11,
64, 65, 67, 68, 96, 116.
underglaze red, 149, 150; pi. 118.
Flame scroll, 113, 119, 139; pis. 69, 70, 106.
Flames, 119, 136, 149; pis. 50, 73, 82, 89,
117.
Flaming jewel (or pearl), 75, 151; pis. 48,
60.
Flaming wheel. 111; pis. 66, 105.
Decoration — continued
Floral motifs and flowers in general, 79, 89-
100, 109, 111, 114, 115, 119, 124, 126,
130, 136-140, 145-150, 151n., 155, 156.
See also various flowers by name.
FoUage and foliate patterns, 70, 75-77, 122,
139; pis. 28, 72.
Foliate tail. See Dragon.
Fountain, 134-136; pi. 99.
Fruit, 91, 92, 94, 96-98, 140, 145, 149; pis.
32, 40, 42, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 56, 76, 83,
87, 92, 105, 113, 115.
Fu (happiness), 126, 130, 149; pi. 117.
Fungus, 90, 91, 92, 108, 112, 116, 118, 130,
137, 139, 144; pis. 29, 33-35, 37, 40, 41,
54, 55, 59, 65, 69, 71, 72, 82, 83, 92, 100,
106, 112.
Garden scenes, 113, 128, 130; pis. 60, 68.
Gardenia, 67; pis. 22, 42.
Gilt, 143, 144.
Gold, 144, 149; pis. Ill, 113, 117.
Gold mounting, 145; pi. 113.
Golden pheasant, 130; pi. 92.
Goose, 76, 130, 15 In.; pi. 92.
Gourd, 139.
Grape, 66, 68, 70, 94, 126; pis. 13, 16, 22,
24, 26, 29, 37-39, 56, 81, 94.
Grass, pis. 9, 89.
Hare, 132, 133; pi. 96.
Hawk, 132; pi. 96.
Heron, pi. 94.
Hexagram, 138; pi. 100.
Hibiscus, 91, 93; pis. 34, 37, 55.
Hindu symbols. 111.
Horse, 128, 139, 147; pis. 71, 82, 87, 105,
106, 109, 114.
Hsi (joy), 126.
Hundred antiques, pi. 109.
Hydropotes inermis, 138.
Impressed, 157; pi. 124.
Incised, 96, 112, 143-147, 151, 155-157;
pis. 45, 50, 53, 89, 110, 112-115, 121-
127, 138D.
Insects, 137; pi. 87, 91, 94, 99, 100, 102,
108.
Jeweled strings, pi. 79.
Kinrande, 144n.
Knotweed, 95, 96, 112; pis. 42, 43, 64.
INDEX
179
Decoration — continued
Landscape, 91, 94-96, 108-110, 118, 126-
132, 138, 139, 150; pis. 42, 43, 59, 63,
71, 81, 83, 86, 89, 91-96, 99-103, 105,
106, 108.
inverted, 129, 130.
Leaves, 40, 41, 57, 70, 71, 75, 77, 90, 92-
94, 100, 110, 114-116, 118, 140, 144;
pis. 7, 12, 27, 32-34, 36, 37, 39-41, 46,
47, 50-52, 54, 56, 57, 69.
spiky, 66, 68, 70, 71; pis. 7-22, 24, 26.
stiff, 136, 157; pis. 54, 69, 74, 99, 109,
115, 129, 130.
Lily, 95; pis. 42-44.
Ling-chih, 90.
Lion, 57, 108, 126, 129, 149, 150; pis. 26,
58, 82, 89, 99, 116, 117.
Litchi, 94, 95, 156; pis. 41, 56, 140.
Lotus, 35, 66, 77, 110, 120, 131, 142, 155;
pis. 64, 65, 95, 101.
Lotus blossom, 61, 71, 76, 90, 92, 93, 110,
128; pis. 32-34, 36, 39, 46, 47, 56, 66,
69, 71, 72, 74, 89, 121, 128.
Lotus bouquet, 71, 75, 92, 93, 144; pis. 30,
31, 110.
Lotus bud, 68; pis. 26, 27, 32, 46.
Lotus leaves, 71, 90, 92, 1 10; pis. 34, 36, 46,
54.
Lotus panel, 66-68, 71, 75, 76, 79, 92, 97,
98, 123, 139, 140, 156, 157; pis. 7, 8, 12,
19, 21, 23-27, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 61,
64, 69, 77, 83, 85, 87, 100, 106, 109, 115,
126, 129.
Lotus petal, 99, 145; pis. 20, 29, 46, 48, 55,
79, 113.
Lotus plant, pis. 94, 100, 101, 121, 127.
Lotus pond, 66, 74; pis. 7, 8, 22.
Lotus scroll. See under Scroll, below.
Lotus spray. See under Spray, below.
Lotus wreath, 66, 71, 90; pis. 7-22, 24.
Lozenge, 140, 155; pi. 86.
Magpie, 137, 138; pi. 100.
Man in a boat, 130.
Mandarin duck, 130; pi. 92.
Meander, pi. 52.
Medallion, 79, 111, 126, 128, 133, 138-140,
150, 157; pis. 17, 54, 86, 89, 97, 103,
105, 106, 108, 109, 128.
Decoration — continued
Melon, 67, 70, 85n., 92, 94; pis. 12, 13, 16,
22, 26, 40, 91.
Monster, pis. 71, 96.
Moon, 108, 119, 128; pis. 59, 73, 88.
Morning-glory, 67; pis. 13, 17, 22, 24, 26,
35, 36.
Moss-grown wall, 94; pi. 39.
Mountain, 95, 129, 131, 139,
Narcissus, 95; pis. 42-44.
Nightshade, 95; pis. 42-44.
OutUne and wash, 85, 98, 100, 102-104,
108-115; pi. 56.
Overglaze enamel, 113, 130, 149, 150; pis.
61, 93, 104, 116-118.
Overlapping petal band, 112, 116; pis. 69,
105, 106, 137D.
Pagoda, 130.
Pai-ts'e, 68, 129, 149; pis. 25, 26, 28, 91,
117.
Palace, 109, 110; pis. 60, 86.
Palm, 95; pis. 42, 66.
Panel. See Lotus panel, above.
Parakeets, 95, 97.
Park, fenced, pi. 96.
Pavilion, 128, 130; pi. 92.
Peach, 94, 95, 98, 112, 128, 129, 149; pis.
40, 42, 46, 54, 65, 90, 94, 117.
Peafowl, 68, 119, 133; pis. 23, 27, 28, 72,
78, 98.
Pennisetum japonicum, 95; pis. 43, 44.
Peony, 68, 69, 75, 79, 91, 93, 98, 99, 103,
119, 133; pis. 21, 23, 28, 32-35, 37, 42,
54, 56, 57, 98, 101.
Peony blossom, pis. 33, 34, 36.
Peony buds, pi. 32.
Peony leaves, 77; pi. 57.
Peony scroll. See under Scroll, below.
Peony spray. See under Spray, below.
Peony tree, 124, 155; pis. 72, 78, 122.
Peony wreath, 67, 90; pis. 17, 19, 22.
Persian inscription, 55, 121; pis. 20, 51.
Persimmon, pi. 56.
Petal, 119, 157; pis. 57, 69, 113. See also
Lotus petal, above.
Petal band, 112, 116, 119; pis. 69, 105, 106,
137D.
180
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Decoration — continued
Phoenix, 35, 37, 67, 68, 116, 118, 140, 142,
144n.; pis. 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 69, 71,
98, 109.
Pica pica, 138.
Pine, 93, 95, 118, 126, 128-130, 139, 142;
pis. 40, 42, 44, 47, 60, 71, 80, 86, 91,
107.
Pine needle, pis. 44, 74.
Pinks, pi. 55.
Plantain, 95, 105, 119; pis. 43, 44, 51, 56,
69.
Plants, 66, 90; pis. 43, 44, 73, 74, 92, 100,
101, 108. See also Aquatic plants, above,
terrestrial, 66.
Pomegranate, 90, 128; pis. 33, 42, 87.
Poppy, pis. 21, 27.
Praying mantis, 68; pi. 26.
Primrose, 95; pi. 42.
Prunus, 93, 108, 109, 126, 128, 129, 142;
pis. 40, 44, 47, 59, 60, 80, 88-90, 92,
107.
Quail, 138.
Radial segments, 137.
Rectangles, pi. 88.
Relief, 67, pis. 123, 125, 127-130.
Rocks, 34n., 66, 93, 95, 96, 108, 109, 119,
124, 129-131, 133, 137, 139, 149; pis.
12, 13, 22, 28, 59, 72, 78, 79, 89, 92, 96,
98, 101, 108, 109, 117.
Roses, 91; pis. 33, 41, 43, 71, 100, 101.
Rosette, pi. 55.
Roundel, 122, 126, 129; pis. 75, 81.
Sage in a landscape, 139.
Sagittaria, 92; pis. 30, 31, 36.
Sanskrit characters, 64n., 112.
Scalloped band, pis. 34, 105.
Scholars, 109; pi. 60.
Scrolls, abstract, 68, 115, 116.
camellia, 112, 124; pis. 21, 61.
chrysanthemum, 75, 100, 144; pis. 21,
22, 29, 55.
classic, 66, 68, 75, 76, 89, 97, 114,
119, 124; pis. 11, 12, 23, 25, 26, 30,
32, 36, 45-48, 54, 55, 70-74, 78.
Decoration — continued
Scrolls — con tin ued
cloud, 100, 119, 123, 128; pis. 17, 18,
21, 45, 55, 66, 70, 71, 73, 79, 87,
89, 93, 105, 109, 138C.
crapemyrtle, 66.
flame, 113, 119, 139; pis. 69, 70, 106.
floral. See Floral motifs. . . .
foliage or foUate, 70, 76, 77; pis. 40,
55, 56, 72, 75, 76, 79, 93, 109.
fungus, 90, 112, 139, 144; pis. 29, 33-
35, 40, 41, 65, 69, 72, 82, 83, 92,
112.
hibiscus, pi. 55.
leafy. See foHage or fohate, above,
lotus, 68, 76, 77, 90, 97-99, 109, 116,
118, 126, 127, 134, 139, 156, 157;
pis. 7, 9, 11, 13, 23, 25, 26, 28, 34,
51-57, 64, 69, 71-74, 79, 85, 127,
129.
peony, 68, 76, 90, 98, 124, 156; pis.
17, 19, 21-23, 25-27, 32, 55, 56,
78, 123.
poppy, pi. 27.
tight, 57.
undefined, 57, 98, 99, 115, 116, 155;
pis. 21, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 69, 71,
82, 87, 90, 91, 94, 101, 105, 106,
109-111, 113, 121.
vine, pis. 26, 30, 32-36, 39, 40, 45-47.
waterchestnut, pi. 55.
Scrollwork, 71.
Seahorse, 129; pi. 89.
Sea perch, pi. 9.
Seascape, pi. 89.
Sedge, pi. 43.
Seed pod, 92.
Serpentine waves. See under Waves, below.
Shefl, 116.
Shou (longevity), 80n., 126, 128, 129; pis.
80, 86, 89, 90.
Shrubs, pis. 101, 102, 109.
Sika, 138; pi. 107.
Slip, 62, 67, 75, 80, 98, 138, 139, 143, 144,
151; pis. 22, 48, 106, 108, 119, 138B.
Spiky leaves. See under Leaves, above.
INDEX
181
Decoration — continued
Sprays, camellia, pis. 32, 37, 42.
cherry, pis. 42, 47, 56.
chrysanthemum, 68, 91, 93, 145; pis.
14, 17, 23, 28, 32, 33, 35, 37, 42,
54, 113.
day lily, pi. 42.
floral. See Floral motifs. . . .
fruit, 91, 92, 97, 145; pis. 32, 40, 42,
46, 47, 51, 52, 56, 83, 92, 105, 113,
115.
fungus, 91, 92, 137; pis. 29, 33, 37,
41, 54, 55, 71, 100.
gardenia, pi. 42.
grape, pis. 29, 56, 94.
hibiscus, pi. 37.
leaf. See Leaves,
litchi, pi. 56.
lotus, 69, 136; pis. 12, 19, 23, 28, 33,
35, 50, 51, 54, 62, 124.
morning-glory, pi. 35.
narcissus, pi. 42.
peach, 98, 112; pis. 42, 46, 54, 65, 94.
peony, 79, 91; pis. 21, 23, 33, 35, 37,
42, 54, 56, 101.
persimmon, pi. 56.
pomegranate, pis. 32, 42.
poppy, pis. 21.
prunus, pi. 90.
rose, pis. 33, 41, 71, 100, 101.
vine, pis. 33, 72.
Squares, 155.
Squirrels, 126; pis. 81, 91.
Stamped, 157; pis. 124, 127, 128.
Starlike flower, 112.
Sui-han-san-yu, 93.
Sun, 113; pi. 68.
Swastika, 127, 140; pis. 85, 109.
Symbols, pis. 66, 109.
Taoist paradise, 11 On.
Teal, 132; pi. 97.
Tendrils, 70, 94; pis. 37, 39.
Terrace, llOn., 129; pi. 89.
Three friends (of winter), 93, 98, 109, 128,
129; pis. 40, 44, 47, 60, 86, 89, 107.
Thunder pattern, 76, 89, 90, 97, 116; pis.
30, 36, 40, 45-47, 54-56, 69, 99, 109,
110.
Decoration — con tin ued
Tibetan script. 111; pi. 66.
Tiger lily, pi. 44.
Tortoise, 129; pi. 91.
Trees, 137; pis. 86, 92.
Trefoil, 110, 157; pis. 34, 46, 54, 56, 61, 62,
65, 69, 109, 129.
Trigrams, 138.
Vajra, 76, 110; pis. 23, 62.
Vines, 67, 85n., 90, 94; pis. 26, 30, 32-40,
45-47, 72.
Waffle pattern, 155.
Wash, graded, 96, 108, 131.
Wash with outline. See Outline and wash.
Waterchestnut, pis. 9, 11, 55.
WaterfaU, 129, 130; pi. 91.
Water fern, pis. 9, 11.
Waterfowl, 132; pi. 97.
Watermelon. See Melon.
Water plants (or waterweeds). See Aquatic
plants.
Waves, 79, 89, 96, 98, 129; pis. 30, 34, 37,
40, 41, 46, 47, 50, 53, 54, 72, 79, 89,
105, 109, 114, 117, 127.
concentric, 66, 67, 116; pis. 7, 15, 23,
69, 138D.
incised, 112, 156; pis. 65, 127.
serpentine, 67, 79, 90; pis. 16-19, 21,
26, 27.
Willow, 76, 130.
Winged dragons, 110, 119; pi. 70.
Wreaths, lotus, 66, 71, 90; pis. 7-22, 24.
peony, 67, 90; pis. 17, 19, 22.
Yin-Yang, pi. 55.
Dedication of the porcelains, 8-10.
Deer, 118, 126, 129-132, 138, 139; pis. 71, 81,
91, 92, 96, 100-103, 107.
Chinese water, 138.
Pere David's, 131, 132, 138; pis. 91, 96.
Sika, 138; pi. 107.
Deignan, Herbert G., xiii.
Detroit Institute of Arts, Exhibition of 1952,
120n., 128n.
Diaper pattern. See under Decoration.
Dishes. See under Shapes.
182
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Disney, Walt, 118.
"Dog of the threshold of 'All," 9.
Double-gourd vase. See under Shapes.
Dragonfly, 128, 149; pis. 88, 116.
Dragons. See under Decoration.
Drinking vessels, 117, 132, 133; pis. 69, 97.
Dubosc, Jean-Pierre, xiii.
Duck. See under Decoration.
Duck-shaped vessel, 133n.
Duckweed, pis. 9, 11.
Du Sartel, Octave, 27, 133.
Dutch, 136, 137n.
Dutch painting, 133n., 139.
Duyvendak, J. J. L., 24n.
Dyar Bakr, 4.
Edges. See Rims.
Edwards, E. D., xii.
Eelgrass, 66; pis. 9, 11.
Egret, 67; pi. 18.
Egypt, 5, 24.
Ekber, All, 21, 122n.
Elaphurus davidianus, 132.
Elephant. See under Decoration.
Elephant-shaped vessel, 132, 133; pi. 97.
Enamel over the glaze, 113, 130, 149, 150; pis.
61, 93, 104, 116-118.
Ethnografiska Museet, 75n.
Etsin-gol, 72.
Ettinghausen, Elizabeth, vii, xiii.
Ettinghausen, Richard, vii, 52n.; pi. 137A.
Etzina, 72, 73.
Eumorfopoulos, George, xii.
Eumorfopoulos Collection, 62n., 63n., 145n.
European influence, 140.
Evans, I. H. N., 117.
Ewers. See under Shapes.
Export porcelain, 49, 50, 136.
Fa-hsien, 117.
Falsafi, NasroUah, 52n.
Famille noire, 113.
Fan, 139; pi. 66.
Faridun Khan, 10.
Ferghana, 55.
Fern, 95, 105; pis. 43, 51, 56, 69.
Figures (human). See under Decoration.
Finjdn (cup), 10.
Firuz, 3.
Fischel, Walter J., 70n.
Fish. See under Decoration.
FitzwiUiam Museum, 11 On.
Flames, etc. See under Decoration.
Flask. See under Shapes.
Flattened rims. See under Rims.
Floral motifs. See under Decoration.
Foliage, etc. See under Decoration.
Fohate rims. See Rims, foUate.
Foot rims, 60, 84, 108, 123, 154, 155; pis. 139-
142.
Fostat, 60; pi. 131A-B.
Fou-liang-hsien-chih, 41n.
Fountain ewer, 134.
Fragments. See Shards.
Franks, Sir Augustus, 27, 134.
Eraser, James B., 14.
Freer Gallery of Art, xiii, 144. See also under
Collections.
Friedmann, Herbert, xiii.
Frog shape, 132, 133; pi. 97.
Fruit. See under Decoration.
Frye, Richard N., vii, xii.
Fu (happiness), 126, 130, 139, 149, 161; pis.
105, 108, 117.
Fu-ch'eng, 30.
Fu-ch'eng-chih Hsien, 30.
Fukien, 113, 119.
Fu-kuei-chia-ch'i, 128, 147, 150, 161; pis. 87, 89,
114.
FMmark, 139; pis. 105, 108.
Fungus. See under Decoration.
Fuimel shape, 99; pi. 55.
Fu-p'ing-chih Hsien, 30.
Fu-shou-k'ang-ning, 140, 161; pi. 108.
Garden scenes, 113, 128, 130; pis. 60, 68.
Gardenia, 67; pis. 22, 42.
Gamer, Sir Harry, xii, 75, 85n., 86n., 89n., 103n.,
121n., 122n., 128n., 132n., 149n., 156n.;
pi. 28.
Gdvdush (or Kavdush), 10, 11.
INDEX
183
Ghuldman, 8.
Gilt, 143, 144.
Glasgow Art Gallery, 80.
Glass, Islamic, 86, 88n., 89; pis. 135A-B.
Glaze:
Blue, 65n., 151; pis. 119, 138B.
Bluish, 43, 105, 143; pis. 49, 112.
Celadon, 42, 49, 61, 62, 76, 153-158; pis.
121-130.
Coffee brown, 151.
Kinuta type, 154.
Thin, pi. 49.
Turquoise, 149; pi. 116.
Watermelon green, 152; pi. 120.
Yellow, 151.
Godard, Andre, xii.
Gold, 144, 149; pis. Ill, 113, 117.
Gold mounting, 145; pi. 113.
Gold vessels, 8, 20, 37.
Golden pheasant, 130; pi. 92.
Goose, 76, 130, 151n.;pl. 92.
Gordon, Antoinette K., 111.
Gorgelet. 117n.
Gosu (or Goshu) ware, 34n.
Gourd, 139.
Gourd shape, 63n., pis. 55, 86.
Grandidier Collection, 151; pi. 138B.
Grape. See under Decoration.
Gray, BasU, xiii, 64, 70n., 71, 86n., 87n., 88n.
Gujerat, 24.
Gyllensvard, Bo, xiii.
Ha-dong, 104 n.
Hai-tzu, 131.
Hai Yen, 30.
Hajji Baba of Ispahan, 14.
Halima, 4.
Kama, 69-72; pis. 131C-D, 132.
Hamadan, 6.
Hambis, L., 73n.
Kami, 21, 22.
Han Dynasty, 61, 83, 130, 153.
Hangchou, 102.
Han-hai, 32n., 43n.
Hanoi, 104n.
Hannover, E., 134, 139n.
Han Wai-toon, 117.
Han Wei-chiin, 4 In.
Hare, 132, 133; pi. 96.
Hare mark, 136, 139, 140; pis. 99, 108, 109.
Harim, 55.
Harrisson, Tom, 124n.
Hatstand, 99, 121, 128.
Hawk, 136; pi. 96.
Hedin, Sven, 72n., 73, 75; pis. 133, 134.
Heidar, Sheikh, 4, 14.
Herat, 4, 21, 23n., 53, 54.
Heron, pi. 94.
Herrmann, A., 2 In., 42n.
Hetherington, A. L., 117n.
Hibiscus, 91, 93; pis. 34, 37, 55.
Hideyoshi, 125.
Hindu, Prince, 73.
Hindu symbols. 111.
Hinduism, 111.
Hippisley, A. E., 36.
Hirth, R, 24n., 43n.
History and description of the Shrine, 6-17; pi. 2.
Hobson, R. L., xii, 17, 28, 36, 61n., 62n., 63,
69n., 74, 88, 101, 115n., 116n., 117n., 119n.,
125n., 128, 131n., 154n.
Holmes, W. R., 15.
Holy Roman Empire, 5.
Home, Sir David, 123; pi. 138C-D.
Honan, 113.
Honey, W. B., 98n.
Horses. See under Decoration.
Ho San-wei, 39n.
Hosein Baiqara, 53, 54n.
Hosein be-jujt, 55.
Hosein haqq, 55.
Hsi (joy), 126.
Hsi-an-fu,21.
Hsiang Yiian-pien's album, 28n.
Hsiao-tsung, 121.
Hsieh Chao-huang, 27n.
Hsien-tsung, 101.
Hsin-chou, 59.
Hsin Yuan Shih, 73n.
Hsu P'u, 37n.
Hsuan-te, 23, 24, 78, 84, 94, 98, 101, 102, 105,
107, 110, 11 In., 112n., 114.
184
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Hsuan-te marks. See under Marks: Nien-hao.
apocryphal. See under Marks: Nien-hao.
Hsiian-tsang, 21.
Hsuan-tsung, 101.
Huang Cheng-wei, 39n.
Huang Hsi-fan, 27n.
Huang Hung-hsien, 39n.
Hu-lu, 63n.; pi. 86.
Humayun, 56.
Hummel, Arthur W., xiil.
Hundred antiques, pi. 109.
Hung-chih, 23, 107, 111, 114, 115, 118, 124,
133, 149, 151; pis. 115, 116.
Hung-chih marks. See under Marks: Nien-hao.
Hung-hsi, 24.
Hung-wu, 23, 33n., 39n., 44, 77-81, 83.
Huo, 87.
Huqqeh, 10, 11. See also Kendi.
Hydropotes inermis, 138.
Ibn Battuta, 19.
Ibn Khaldun, 70n.
I-chi-nai, 73.
I-men-kuang-tu, 39n., 44n.
"Imperial" wares, 33-38.
Incense burner, 59, 61.
Incised decoration. See under Decoration.
India, 24, 117, 145.
Indra, 111.
Infrared photography, pi. 110.
Ingholt, Harald, 69n., 70n., 71.
Inscriptions on the porcelains :
Arabic script, 34, 55; pis. 55, 75.
Chinese (in ink), pi. 30.
Dedicatory, 9, 17, 49, 51, 56; pi. 6.
Mughal, 56, 57, 146; pi. 6.
Naskhi, 123.
Persian, 55; pis. 20, 51.
Portuguese, 57, 58, 114; pi. 6.
Thulth, 122.
Tibetan, 111.
Uighur (in ink), pis. 30, 112.
See also Marks.
Insects. See under Decoration.
Intaglio stamp, 157.
Interregnum, 32, 101-105, 142; pis. 47, 49, 51,
56,
loannes, Kalo, 4.
Isfahan, 6, 7.
porcelains in, 56, 57, 68, 120, 146, 159;
pis. 26, 54, 114.
Ishaq SafI ed-Din, Sheikh, 3.
Isina, 73.
Islamic copies of Chinese blue-and- white, 70, 71;
pis. 131C-D, 132.
Islamic glass, 86, 88n., 89; pi. 135A-B.
Islamic influence, 44, 61, 63, 64, 86-89, 121-
124.
Islamic metalwork, 64, 87-89, 99; pis. 136A,
137A.
Islamic pottery, 44, 70, 87-89, 99.
Ismael (variant of Isma'il), 14.
Isma'il, Shah, 4-6, 9, 14, 15, 55n.
Isma'il II, Shah, 5, 9.
Istanbul, 5, 111, 112, 115, 116, 124, 145. See
also under Collections: Topkapu Sarayi Miizesi.
Ivanov, A., 73, 74n.
Ivory, 66.
Ivory-colored paste, 108.
Jacquemart, A., 36.
Jade, 14, 16, 66.
Jahan, Shah, 56n.
Jahanglr, Shah, 56, 146; pis. 6, 114.
Jaihun River (Amu Darya or Oxus), 22.
Jakarta Museum, 118.
Jalal ed-Din Mohammad Munajjim Yazdl, 8, 14,
49, 51.
Jannat-Makani, Shah, 10.
Janse, Olov R. T., 104n., 120n.
Jao-chou, 30, 38.
Japan, 34n., 125.
Japanese blue-and-white, 34n.
Jars, 75, 76, 129. See also Kuan.
Jaubert, Pierre Amedee, 14.
Java, 117.
Javadvipa, 117.
Jaxartes River, 55.
Jenkinson, Anthony, 12.
Jenyns, Soame, xiii, 40, 61n., 68n., 76, 95n.,
103n., llOn., 114-117, 120n., 128n., 132n.,
139n., 151n.
Jesuits, 135n.
Jewels, 145.
INDEX
185
Jigha, 56.
Ju-chou, 154n.
Ju ware, 28, 154n.
Julien, Stanislas, 27, 42, 43.
Jumahir fi-Ma'rifat al-Jawahir, 19.
Juneid, Sheikh, 4.
Kabul, 55.
Kajcheh (spoon), 10, 11.
Kahle, Paul, 19n., 22n., 122n.
Kalgi-i-ablaq, 56.
Kan-chou, 21, 72.
K'ang-hsi, 30, 41, 96, 103, 112n., 113, 119, 129,
131, 141, 142; pi. 93.
Karakhodja, 21.
Karakorum, 72, 135n.
Kashan, 6.
Kashgar, 21.
Kashkul (beggar's bowl), 10.
Kashmir, 22.
Kavdush (milk container), 10, 11.
Kendi (drinking vessel), 11, 117, 132, 152; pis.
69, 97, 137B.
Kershaw, F. S., 117.
Kessler, Melvin, 74n.
Khanbalik (Peking), 21.
Kharakhoto, 69, 72-77, 100; pis. 133, 134.
Khatai, paper of, 14.
Khatalan, 55.
Khaylan, 55.
Khitai, 22.
Khitai Nameh, 22n., 122n.
Khorasan, 5, 23n., 52, 53.
Khotan, 21, 22.
Khwaja 'All, 3, 4.
Kiangsi Province, 30, 38, 40, 56, 59, 104, 153.
Kiln sites, 104n.
King, WilUam, 57.
King of Saintliness, 51.
Kinnier, Col. Macdonald, K. L. S., 15.
Kinrande, 144n.
Kinuta, 154.
Knop in stems, 64.
Knotweed, 95, 96, 112; pis. 42, 43, 64.
Ko-ku-yao-lun, 32n., 38, 43.
Kotvich, v., 73n.
Kozlov, Col. P. K., 72n., 73.
Kraakporselein, 136-140, 151.
Krenkow, F., 19n.
Ku T'ai, 32n.
Kuan. See under Shapes.
Kuang-hsu, 94n.
Kucha, 22.
Kuei, 120n.
Kuklan tribe, 10.
Ku-kung, 127n.
Ku-kung-shu-hua-chi, 145n.
K'un (trigram), 138.
Kundi (Kendl), 117.
Kundika, 117.
Kuo Tzu-ch'ang, 31.
Kushi Takushin, 94n., 112n., 128n., 129.
Ku-tung-chih, 32n.
Kuzeh (earthenware jugs), 10.
Lacque, 15.
Lacquer, 11, 66.
Lam Dien, 104n.
Lamm, C. J., 86n., 88n.
Lan P'u, 27n., 30, 41.
Land routes, China to Iran, 20-23.
Landscape. See under Decoration.
Lane, Arthur, xiii.
Langari (large tub, etc.), 10, 11.
Laufer, B., 122n.
Leaves. See under Decoration.
Le Blant, Edmond, 36.
Lee, Jean Gordon, 80n.
Leth, Andre, xiii.
Levy, R., xii.
Li Hui-lin, xiii.
Li T'iao-yuan, 32n., 43n.
Liao Dynasty, 40.
Library of Congress, xiii, 39n.
Library of the Shrine, 6, 8, 13-16.
Lien-tzu (lotus seed bowls), 86, 97, 144, 145;
pis. 46, 47, 113.
Lily, 95; pis. 42-44.
Ling-chih, 90.
Lion. See under Decoration.
Lion-Goldschmidt, Daisy, xiii.
Litchi, 94, 95, 156; pis. 41, 56, 140.
Liu Feng, 39n.
Liu Ping, 27n., 30.
186
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Lo Chen-yii, 22n.; pi. 60.
Loewenthal, Rudolf, 74n.
London, xii, 8n., 59, 123n.
Lotus. See under Decoration.
Louvre, Musee du, 89.
Lozenge decoration, 140, 155; pi. 86.
Lozenge marks, 111, 162; pis. 63, 137D.
Lu (prosperity), 130.
Lung-ch'ing, 31, 121, 125, 150.
Lung-ch'iian, 61, 63, 86, 87.
Lu-p'ing, 35n.
Maani, Madam, 13.
Macao, 135n.
Maggi, Giovanni, 135n.
Magic Fountain, 135n.
Magpie, 137, 138; pi. 100.
Malacca, Straits of, 136.
Malaya, 117.
Mallet, Francis, 6 In.
Man in a boat, 130.
Mangu Khan, 135n.
Mann, William M., xiii.
Manuchehr Khan, 52.
Marhamdani, 10.
Marhum, 55.
Maritime routes, China to Iran, 23-25.
Markab, 10.
Marks:
'Abbas, 9, 17, 49, 51, 56, 57, 113, 133, 146,
152, 154, 160; pis. 6, 15.
abbreviated form, 51, 160; pis. 6, 49,
53, 90, 108.
Abu Talib, 54, 160; pis. 6, 53.
'Alamgir, 57.
Behbud, 53, 54, 160; pis. 6, 49, 53.
Ch'ang-ming-ju-kuei, 161.
Ching-chih, 161.
Cross in a double circle, 162.
Double circle, 112n.
Fruit spray, 151.
Fu, 139, 161; pis. 105, 108.
Fu-kuei-chia-ch'i, 128, 147, 150, 161; pis.
87, 89, 114.
Fu-shou-k'ang-ning, 140, 161; pi. 108.
Hare, 136, 139, 140, 162; pis. 99, 108, 109.
Marks — continued
Jahanglr, 56; pis. 6, 114.
Lozenge, 111, 162; pis. 63, 137D.
Ndrinji (or ndranji), 55, 160; pi. 31.
Nien-hao:
Apocryphal or spurious, 125, 128, 129,
136n.
Ch'eng-hua, 34, 109, 122n., 146, 149,
160, 161; pi. 115.
apocryphal, 132, 150, 161; pi. 96.
Cheng-te, 34, 35, 122, 123, 146, 149n.,
160, 161; pis. 75, 115-117.
Cheng-t'ung, 102.
Chia-ching, 34, 35, 125, 126, 127n.,
128n., 129, 135n., 136, 150, 160,
161; pis. 79-82, 118.
Ching-t'ai, 102.
Hsuan-te, 64n., 65n., 78, 79, 88, 95n.,
97, 98, 102, llln., 119n., 145n.;
pi. 55.
apocryphal, 117n., 123, 127n.,
128, 129, 133, 136, 140n., 150,
151, 161; pis. 77, 86, 87, 89,
98, 99, 118.
Hung-chih, 34, 55, 56, 107, 122n., 123,
124, 128n., 146, 149, 160, 161; pis.
114-116, 138D.
Hung-wu, 33n., 34n.
T'ien-shun, 102.
Wan-U, 34, 35, 125, 127, 128n., 147,
150, 160, 161; pis. 79, 83-86.
Yiian-yu, 154.
Non-Chinese, 51-58; pi. 6.
Owners', 58, 146; pis. 62, 64, 1 14, 1 15, 1 17.
Qdl, 55.
Qarachaghdy, 51-53, 160; pis. 6, 25, 30-36,
38,42,53,71,111.
Qutt (or Qutt). 55, 160; pis. 30, 31, 33, 40,
41.
Swastika, 129, 162; pi. 90.
Ta-ch'ing-chi-yu-nien-chih, 41 .
T'ai-ko-chia-ch 'i, 131.
T'ai-p'ing-nien-chih, 40.
Ta-ming-nien-tsao, 57, 114, 125, 140, 161;
pis. 74, 109.
Ta-sung-nien-tsao, 154.
Te-jen-ch'ang-ch'un, 161.
INDEX
187
Marks — continued
Wan-fu-yu-t'ung, 57, 161.
Yuan-yu-nien-tsao, 154.
See also Inscriptions.
Martaban, 10, 11.
Mashhad, 6, 8, 15, 52n.
Masjid, 12.
Master patterns, 93.
Maulana. See Mohammad Hosein Hakkak
e-Khorasanl.
Mayuyama, J., 112n.
Mazar, 13.
Mecca, 3, 9, 22, 23n.
Medallion. See under Decoration.
Mei-p'ing. See under Shapes.
Melons. See under Decoration.
Menges, K. H., xii.
Merry, Harriet Harrison, xii.
Mesar, 13.
Me skit, 12.
Metalwork, Chinese, 66.
Islamic, 64, 87-89; pis. 136A-B, 137 A.
MetropoUtan Museum of Art, 34, 97n.; pi. 135B.
Michigan, University of, 40.
Miles, George C, xii, 54n.
Milk containers, 10, 11.
Min (Russian transcription of Ming), 73.
Ming Dynasty, 66, 73, 77, 80.
Ming history, 39n., 73, 77.
Ming money, 73, 74.
Ming Shih, 39n., 73n.
Ming statutes, 36, 37.
Ming texts, 31-33, 37, 38.
Minorsky, V., xii.
Mogholistan, 22.
Moghul, Emperor of India, 17. See also Mughal.
Mohammad (inscription), 55.
Mohammad Beg Shams ed-DIn, 8.
Mohammad Hosein Hakkak e-Khorasanl, 9, 51,
57.
Mohammad Khoda-bandeh, Shah, 5.
Molla Jalal, 8. See also Jalal ed-Din. . . .
Mongols, 3, 20, 102, 125, 135n.
Monochromes, 151, 152.
Monster, pis. 71, 96.
Monteith, Col., 15.
Montell, Gosta, 75.
Moon, 108, 119, 128; pis. 59, 73, 88.
Moon flask, 86.
Morier, James, 14.
Morning-glory. See under Decoration.
Mosque at Ardebil, 6, 12; pi. 2.
Mostafavi, K. M., xii.
Motifs. See Decoration.
Moule, A. C, 72n.
Mountain, 95, 129, 131, 139.
Mounting, brass, pi. 53.
gold, 145; pi. 113.
silver, 139.
Mughal inscriptions, 56, 57, 146; pi. 6,
Munsterberg, Oskar, 134.
Musa Kazim, 3.
Musee des Beaux Arts, 133n.
Musee du Cinquantenaire, 104n.
Musee Guimet, pi. 138B.
Museum of Eastern Art, pi. 126.
Na'lbaki (saucers), 10.
Namakdan (salt cellars), 10.
Narcissus, 95 ; pis. 42-44.
Narin, 55.
Ndrinji (or ndranji), 55, 160; pi. 31.
"Narghih," 117.
Naskh (or naskhi), 56, 123.
Nasta'liq, 56.
Nau Dihl in Tahsh, 10.
Near Eastern. . . . See Islamic.
Nelson, WiUiam Rockhill, Gallery of Art, 34,
62n., 64n., 97n.
Nezu Museum, 95n.
Nien, unusual form of, 149n.
Nien-hao, 33-35, 84, 101, 112n., 113, 114, 122,
124, 125, 127, 128, 146, 149n., 150, 154, 160,
161. See also under Marks.
Nightshade, 95; pis. 42, 43.
Ni-ku-lu, 32n.
Ningsia Province, 72.
Nisbah, 55.
Norton, H. R. N., 109.
Okuda Seiichi, 104n., 118.
Olearius, Adam, 13, 14, 52, 5 3n.; pi. 2.
188
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Olschki, Leonardo, 135n.
Or do will (variant of Ardebil), 12.
Oriental Ceramic Society, Exhibition of, 1953-
1954, 33n., 35, 60n., 64n., 67n., 69n., 75, 76,
85n., 86n., 89n., 94n., 98n., 109n., llOn.,
120n., 123n., 131n., 132n., 156n.; pi. 28.
Ormuz, 24, 25.
Orontes River, 69.
Orsoy de Flines, E. W. van, 104n., 118.
Ottema, Nanne, 86n., 99n.
Ottoman Turks, 5.
Outline and wash. See under Decoration.
Overlapping petal band, 112, 116; pis. 69, 105,
106, 137D.
Owners' marks, 58, 146; pis. 62, 64, 114, 115,
117.
Ox shape, 133.
Oxus River, 22.
Pagoda, 130.
Pai-ts'e. See under Decoration.
"Palace" bowls, 109-112, 146.
Palace Museum, 127n., 145.
Palm, 95; pis. 42, 66.
Palmgren, Nils, 39, 40n.
Pao T'ing-po, 27n., 30.
Parakeets, 95, 97.
Paskie witch, 16.
Patterns, master, 93.
Peach. See under Decoration.
Peafowl. See under Decoration.
Peking, 20n., 21, 31, 33, 109, 112, 131, 145.
Pelliot, P., 20n., 27n., 28n., 39n., 72n., 122n.
Pen box, 88.
Pen rest, 122.
Pennisetum japonicum, 95; pis. 43, 44.
Peony. See under Decoration.
Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art. See
under Collections.
Persian imitations of celadons, 159.
Persian inscriptions, 55, 121; pis. 20, 51.
Persian spoken in China, 55, 124.
Persimmon, pi. 56.
Philadelphia Museum of Art, Exhibition of 1949,
33n., 34, 35n., 60n., 62n., 64n., 68n., 69n., 75,
76, 78n., 79n., 86n., 87n., 91, 94n., 97n., 98n.,
103n., 105n., 115n., 116n., 145n., 156n.,
157n.; pi. 29.
PhiUppine Islands, 40, 120n., 126.
Phoenix. See under Decoration; Shapes.
Phu-Tinh-Gia, 104n.
Pickens, C. L., 122n.
Pien-hu (flask), 99; pis. 55, 69.
Pine. See under Decoration.
P'ing, pi. 74.
P'ing-chou-k'o-t'an, 24.
Pipes. See Kendi; also under Shapes.
Pitchers, 16.
Piyaleh (small bowls), 10, 11.
Plain rims. See under Rims.
Plantain. See under Decoration.
Plants. See under Decoration.
Plates. See Dishes under Shapes.
Plumer, James M., 119.
Pole-star of the gnostics (epithet of Sheikh
SafI), 9.
Polo, Marco, 72, 73.
Polychrome wares, 149, 150.
Pomegranate, 90, 128; pis. 33, 42, 87.
Pontanus, 136.
Pope, Arthur Upham, 87n.-89n., 122n.
Pope, John A., vii, 5n., lln., 35n., 59n., 61n.,
65n., 66n., 67n., 69n., 75, 80n., 96n., llOn.,
125n., 126n., 145n.; pis. 27, 110, 137.
Poppy, pis. 21, 27.
"Porcelane," 13.
Portuguese inscription, 57, 58; pi. 6.
Portuguese trade, 25, 136.
Poulsen, Vagn, 70, 71.
Po-wu-yao-Pan, 32n.
Praying mantis, 68; pi. 26.
Primrose, 95; pi. 42.
Princessehof Museum, 99n., 11 In., 126, 133n.
Prunus. See under Decoration.
Oadah (wine bowls), 10.
Qai, 55.
Qajars, 15.
Qandahar, 56.
Qardbeh (double-handled pitchers), 10.
Qarachaghdy, 51-53, 160; pis. 6, 25, 30-36, 38,
42, 53, 71, 111.
Qarun, 8.
Qazvln, 6, 20, 53.
Qizilbash, 4, 55.
Quail, 138.
INDEX
189
Quatremere, M., 2 In.
Quit (or Quti), 55, 160; pis. 30, 31, 33, 40, 41.
Quli Beg Afshah, 55.
Qul-lar Aga-si, 52.
Qum, 15.
Qu'ranic texts, 122.
Qurchi, 8.
Rabino di Borgomale, 54n.
Raku ware, 34n.
Rat-shaped handle, 140; pi. 109.
Ray, 19.
Rebus, 118, 130.
Rectangles, pi. 88.
Rectangular vessels, 60, 62, 68; pi. 28.
Red, underglaze, 78, 150; pis. 29, 118.
Red ring base, 155n., 156; pis. 121, 123, 125.
Redheads. See QizUbash.
Reidemeister, L., 34n.
Reign names. See Nien-hao.
Reitlinger, Gerald, 104n.
Reza, Imam, 6.
Ricci, Father Matteo, 136n.
Rice, D. S., xii, 87n., 89n., 123n.; pi. 136A.
Riesco, R. F. A., 40.
Rieu, Charles, 8n.
Rims, contracted or intuming, 61, 79, 86, 97,
156; pis. 23, 46, 126.
flaring, 61, 64; pis. 24, 47, 48, 60, 62-66,
77, 80, 84, 87, 88, 90, 95, 96, 105, 106,
108, 113-119, 125, 126.
flattened, 66, 85, 119, 137, 143, 144; pis.
7-22, 29, 32-37, 40, 41, 56, 70, 72, 73,
75, 81, 82, 89, 92, 100, 111, 112, 121,
122, 124.
foUate, 67, 70, 76, 85, 91, 129, 137, 138,
143, 144, 151, 157; pis. 16-22, 29, 33,
35-37, 41, 55, 72, 82, 89, 92, 100-103,
105, 106, 108, 112, 119, 121, 128.
in turning. See contracted, above.
plain, 85, 138, 143; pis. 30-34, 36, 39, 40,
42, 43, 45, 47, 58, 59, 61, 65, 67, 68, 71,
72, 74, 78, 83, 87, 89, 91-95, 101-103,
106, 110, 113, 114, 116, 118, 122, 125,
126.
Riviere, H., 89n.
Robinson, B. W., 52n.
RockhiU, W. W., 24n., 43n., 135n.
Rocks. See under Decoration.
Rokh, Shah, 20, 56.
Roses. See under Decoration.
Ross, E. Denison, 12.
Rostam Mirza, 9.
Routes, China to Iran, 19-25.
Rubruck, William of, 135n.
Ruby, gift to Jahanglr, 56.
Rukh. SeeRolh.
Rum (Turkey), 23n.
Rumyancov Museum, 27n.
Russians sack Ardebil, 15.
Sabi', 10.
Sabu (tall jar with single handle), 10.
Sadr ed-Dln, 3, 6.
Safavid Dynasty, x, 3-10, 12-14, 51, 54.
SafI, Shah (another title of Sheikh SafI), 9, 51.
SafI, Sheikh, 3, 6.
Safi ed-Din, Sheikh, 3.
Sagittaria, 92; pis. 30, 31, 36.
Sahn (large tray or plate), 10, 11.
St. Petersburg, 16.
Sairam, 21.
Sa-ma-erh-han (Samarqand), 23.
Samarqand, 20, 21, 23.
Sancheh, 10.
Sangir Islands, 99n.
San-i-chih-yu, 94n.
Sanskrit characters, 64n, 112.
Santa Catarina, 136.
San-ts'ai, 61, 62.
Sardhi (long-necked jars), 10.
Sarre, F., 6, 11, 16, 17, 134.
Sasanian emperor, 3.
Saucers, 50, 119; pi. 108.
Savory, Roger M., xii, 8n.
Sawankalok ware, 118.
Sayer, G. R., 27n., 42, 43.
Sayyid, 10.
Schich-Sefi, 13.
Scrolls. See under Decoration.
Seahorse, 129; pi. 89.
Sea perch, pi. 9.
Sea routes, 23-25.
Seascape, pi. 89.
Sedgwick, Mrs. Walter, xii, 57.
Sefl (variant of SafI), 16.
190
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Seligmann, Mrs. C. G., xii.
Selim, Sultan, 5, 22n.
Seljuk period, pi. 1 37A.
Seng-mao-hu (ewer), 146.
Sepulchre. See Tomb. . . .
Serpentine waves. See under Decoration.
Sha-chu-ting, 22, 23.
Shah kaseh (large bowls), 10, 11.
Shahnameh in Windsor Castle, 52n.
Shah Rokh, 20, 21.
Shah-rukh (variant of Shah Rokh), 56.
Shah SafI (another title of Sheikh SafI), 9, 51.
Shaikh Suffee (variant of Sheikh SafI), 15.
Shang Dynasty, 66, 90, 108.
Shansi Province, 35.
Shan-si-ting, 22.
Shapes of porcelains:
Ajtabeh (ewer), 10, 11.
Albarello, 89; pi. 138 A.
Animal, 133, 151, 152; pis. 97, 120.
Bddiyeh (wine cups), 10, 11.
Baluster vase, 157; pi. 129.
Basm, 88, 112n., 119; pis. 70, 135B.
Bird, 133.
Bottle, 60, 75, 86, 96, 99, 109n., 114, 140,
151n., 157; pis. 53, 74, 109, 129.
Bowls:
Blue-and-white:
Fifteenth century, 86, 105, 109-
113; pis. 46-49, 60-68.
Fourteenth century, 60, 68, 75,
76; pis. 23, 24.
Sixteenth century, 123, 127, 132,
138; pis. 77, 80, 83-85, 87-89,
95, 96, 105-107.
Celadon, 156, 157; pis. 125-128.
Conical, 86, 98, 105; pis. 47, 48.
Deep-sided, 86, 105, 145; pis. 49, 114.
Kraakporselein, 138, 139; pis. 105-
107.
Lien-tzu (lotus seed bowl), 86, 97, 144,
145; pis. 46, 47, 113.
Monochrome, 151.
"Palace," 109, 110, 112, 146.
Polychrome, 149, 150; pis. 117, 118.
White, 144-147; pis. 113-114.
With inturning rims, 61, 79, 86; pis. 23,
46.
Shapes of porcelains — continued
Boxes, 121.
Brush rest, 121.
Bucket, champagne, 131; pi. 96.
Cat, 151, 152; pi. 120.
Chih-hu (ewer), pis. 54, 55, 69, 70, 99, 109.
Cup, 139, 140; pis. 108, 109.
Cup stand, 79; pi. 29.
Dishes:
Blue-and-white:
Fifteenth century, 85, 86, 89-97,
103, 108, 109, 118-120; pis.
29-45, 57-59, 71-74.
Fourteenth century, 60, 61, 66-
68; pis. 7-22, 29.
Sixteenth century, 122-124, 129-
131, 137, 138; pis. 75, 76, 78,
81, 82, 90-94, 100-104.
Celadon, 154-156; pis. 121-124.
Monochrome, 151; pi. 119.
Polychrome, 149, 150; pis. 116-118.
White, 143, 144, 146; pis. 110-112,
115.
Double-gourd, 60, 63, 69, 87, 116, 128; pis.
27, 86.
Drinking vessel, 117, 132, 133; pis. 69, 97.
Duck, 133n.
Elephant, 132, 133; pi. 97.
Ewers, 10, 11, 76, 87, 88, 99, 114, 115,
133-136, 139, 140, 145; pis. 54, 55, 69,
70, 98, 99, 108, 109.
Finjdn (cup), 10, 11.
Flask, 62, 86, 87, 99; pis. 55, 69.
Frog, 132, 133; pi. 97.
Funnel, 99; pi. 55.
Gdvdush (or Kdvdush, milk container), 10,
11.
Gorgelet, 117n.
Gourd, 63n.; pis. 55, 86.
Hatstand, 99, 121, 128.
Hookah. See Huqqeh.
Hu-lu, 63n., pi. 86.
Huqqeh, 10, 11. See also Kendi.
Incense burner, 59, 61.
Jar, 75, 76, 129.
Kafcheh (spoon), 10, 11.
Kashkul (beggar's bowl), 10.
Kdvdush (milk container), 10, 11.
INDEX
191
Shapes of porcelains — continued
Kendi, 11, 117, 132, 152; pis. 69, 97, 137B.
Kuan:
Blue-and-white:
Fifteenth century, 34, 97n., 98,
103-105, llOn., 115, 120; pis.
52, 56.
Fourteenth century, 60, 62, 68;
pis. 26, 27.
Sixteenth century, 13n., 125, 126,
134; pi. 79.
Celadon, 157; pi. 130.
White, 147; pi. 115.
Kuei, 120n.
Kuzeh (earthenware jugs), 10.
Langari (large tubs), 10, 11.
Lien, 156; pi. 125.
Lien-tzu. See under Bowls, above.
Mei-p'ing:
Blue-and-white:
Fifteenth century, 34, 50, 80, 86,
96, 98, 103-105, 115, 120n.;
pis. 50, 51, 56.
Fourteenth century, 60, 62, 68,
76, 80; pis. 25, 26, 138B.
Sixteenth century, 127; pi. 86.
Comparison of shapes, 62, 63.
White, 146; pi. 115.
Moon flask, 86.
Na'lbakl (saucers), 10.
Namakdan (saltcellar), 10.
"Narghih," 117.
Ox, 133.
"Palace" bowls, 109-112, 146.
Pen box, 88.
Pen rest, 122.
Phoenix, 133.
Pien-hu, 99; pis. 55, 69.
P'ing, pi. 74.
Pipe, 100, 117.
Pitchers, 16.
Piydleh (small bowls), 10, 11.
Plates. See Dishes, above.
Qadah (wine bowls), 10.
Qarabeh (double-handled pitchers), 10.
Rat-shaped handle, 140; pi. 109.
Rectangular, 60, 62, 68; pi. 28.
Sabu (tall jar with single handle), 10.
Shapes of porcelains — continued
Sahn (large tray or plate), 10, 11.
Sancheh, 10.
Sarahi (long-necked jars), 10.
Saucer, 50, 119; pi. 108.
Seng-mao-hu (ewer), 146.
Shah kdseh (large bowl), 10, 11.
Sphere, 99; pi. 55.
Spherical object, 128; pi. 86.
Stem bowl, 60, 156; pi. 126.
Stem cup, 60, 63-65, 140, 143.
Stove jar, 35.
Tabak (tray), 10.
Table screen, 121.
Tankard, 88.
Tripod, 61n., 156; pi. 125.
Vases. See Albarello, Baluster, Bottle, Dou-
ble-gourd, Gourd, Kuan, Mei-p'ing, Rec-
tangular, etc.
Vases, David, 59, 69, 75, 78.
Wine bowl, 10.
Wine cup, 10, 11.
YUeh p'ing (moon flask), 86.
Sharbat-khaneh, 9.
Shards:
Ch'eng-hua, 112; pi. 137D.
Ch'ing-ho Hsien, 39, 40.
Chu-lu Hsien, 40.
Fostat, 60; pi. 131 A-B.
Hama, 69-72; pis. 131C-D, 132.
Kharakhoto, 74-77, 100; pis. 133, 134.
Philippine Islands, 40.
Te-hua ware, 70.
Sheikh Ishaq SafI ed-Din, 3.
Sheikh Shah Beg, 10.
Shen-tsung, 19.
Sherley brothers, 13.
Shi'a (or Shi'ite), 4, 5, 8, 15, 51, 56.
Shich-Sefi (variant of Sheikh SafI), 13.
Shih-wu-kan-chu, 32n.
Shiraz, 14, 23n.
Shou. See under Decoration.
Shrine at Ardebil:
Chini-khaneh, 6, 7, 12-17; pis. 2-4.
Dedication of the porcelains, 8-10.
History and description, 6-17; pi. 2.
Library, 6, 8, 13-16.
Shrubs. See under Decoration.
192
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Shu Min, 39n.
Shun-chih, 141-142.
Sika, 138; pi. 107.
Silpasdlar, 52.
Silver mountiBg, 139.
Silver vessels, 8, 20, 37.
Singhala, 117.
Sinological Institute, Leiden, 27n.
Sino-Mongolian inscription, 73.
Sino-Swedish Expedition, 72n., 75.
Slave of the King of Saintliness, 51.
Slip. See under Decoration.
Smirnov, Y. I., 64n.
Smith, Myron Bement, xii.
Sommerstrom, Dr., 75n.
Sophie, 12.
Soreau, Jan, 139n.
Soukhtaline, Count, 15.
Southern Sung, 102.
Spiky leaves. See under Decoration.
Sprays. See under Decoration.
Squirrels, 126; pis. 81, 91.
Ssu-i-kuan-k'ao, 22n.
Stein, Sir Aurel, 72n., 73, 74.
Stem bowl, 60, 156; pi. 126.
Stem cup, 60, 63-65, 140, 143.
Stem, Harold P., xiii.
Storey, Charles A., 8n.
Stove jar, 35.
Su Tung-p'o, 93n.
Su-chou, 21.
Sufi, 3, 4, 9, 12n.
Sui-han-san-yu, 93.
Siileyman the Magnificent, 5, 22n.
Sultan Hasan Khan, 10.
SultanTyeh, 8, 25.
Sung Dynasty, 24, 38-40, 43, 61, 62, 74, 76, 83,
87, 101, 102, 113, 143, 153, 154, 158.
SunnI, 4, 5.
Su-ni-po blue, 84.
Swastika mark, 129, 162; pi. 90.
Swastika pattern, 127, 140; pis. 85, 109.
Swatow wares, 124, 131; pi. 93.
Swedish archaeologists, 72n., 74, 75.
Symbolism, 36, ill, 118, 126.
Symbols, 68, 111; pis. 66, 109.
Syr Darya, 55.
Syria, 5, 69.
Syrian glass, 89.
Sz'yi kuan, 22n.
Tabak, 10.
Tabak-e sorkh, 10, 11.
Table screen, 121.
Tabriz, 3-6, 17, 20.
Ta-ch'ing-chi-yu-nien-chih, 4 1 .
Tahmasp, Shah, 5, 6, 8, 12.
T'ai-ko-chia-ch'i, 131.
T'ai-p'ing-nien-chih, 40.
Tajik people, 8.
Taklamakan Desert, 21.
TaHsh, 10.
Ta-ming-hui-tien, 37, 38.
Ta-ming-nien-tsao, 57, 114, 125, 140, 160; pis.
74, 109.
T'ang Dynasty, 61, 62, 83, 87, 117, 153.
T'ang mirror, 67.
Tankard, 88.
T'ao-chi-ju, 4 In.
T'ao-chi-liieh, 41.
Tao-kuang, 42n., 94n.
T'ao-lu. See Ching-te-chen-t'ao-lu.
Tao-shuo, 27-31, 38, 84n.
T'ao-ya, 43n.
Tarikh-e-'Abbasl, 8-10; pi. 5.
Tashkent, 21.
Ta-sung-nien-tsao, 154.
Tatars, 52, 102.
Tavemier, Jean Baptist, 14.
Tea ceremony, 34n.
Teal, 132; pi. 97.
Tehran, vii, 49, 159.
Te-hua ware shards, 70.
Te-jen-ch'ang-ch'un, 161.
Tendrils, 70, 94; pis. 37, 39.
Terrestrial plants, 66.
Textiles, 66.
Than-hoa, 104n.
Thielmann, Max von, 16.
Three friends (of winter). See under Decoration.
Thulth script, 122.
Thunder pattern. See under Decoration.
Tibetan script. 111; pi. 66.
INDEX
193
T'ien-ch'i, 32n.
T'ien-fang, 22.
T'ien-shun, 23, 39n., 102.
Tiger lily, pi. 44.
Tlraur, 3, 20, 56, 70.
Timurid Dynasty, 53, 54.
Ting ware, 38, 61-63, 86, 87, 119, 143, 158.
Tobacco, 117, 118.
Toledo Museum of Art, 87; pi. 135 A.
Tomans, 7, 9, 10.
Tomb of Sheikh Safi, 3, 6, 12-15.
Tonkin, 104n.
Topkapu Sarayi Miizesi. See under Collections.
Tortoise, 129; pi. 91.
T'o-t'o, Prince, 73n.
Trade by sea, 23-25.
Trade via Central Asia, 20-23.
Transition wares, 34n., 132n., 141.
Transoxiana, 5.
Trays, 10, 11.
Trees, 137; pis. 86, 92.
Trefoil. See under Decoration.
Trigrams, 138.
Trubner, Henry, 62n.
Tsao (in nien-hao), 114, 126, 127; pis. 82, 86,
98, 118.
Ts'ao Chao, 38, 39n.
Ts'ao-shu, 126n.
Tsung-kuan (official), 73.
Tsun-sheng-pa-chien, 84n.
Tubs, 10, 11.
Tu-lu-fan, 22.
T'ung-ya, 32n.
Turab Khan, 10.
Turf an, 21, 22.
Turkish pottery, 88.
Turkomans, 4.
Turquoise, pi. 53.
Turquoise glaze; pi. 116.
Tuzuk-i-Jahanglrl, 56n.
Tzenetsera, 13.
Tz'u-chou ware, 40, 62, 63, 87, 158.
Tz'u-yuan, 93n.
Uighur script, pis. 30, 112.
Ulugh Beg, 56.
Umaiyad period, 3.
'Umar, 5.
University of London, xii, 8n., 59, 123n.
'Uthman, 5.
Utrecht, Adrian van, 133.
Uzbeks, 5.
Uzgand, 55.
Uzun Hasan, 4.
Vajra, 76, 110; pis. 23, 62.
Vala, 111.
Va-la-gla-ma-ja-na, 111.
Vail Sheikh Beg, 10.
Valle, Pietro della, 13.
Vaqj, 7, 8, 49, 51, 53, 121, 145.
Vaqfnameh. See Dedicatory inscription under
'Abbas I.
Vases, David, 59, 69, 75, 78. See also under
Shapes: Albarello, Baluster, Bottle, Double-
gourd, Gourd, Kuan, Mei-p'ing, Rectangular,
etc.
Vermilion, 37.
Vessels used in court ceremonies, 37.
Victoria and Albert Museum:
Carpet, 12.
Copper ewer, pi. 136B.
Porcelains. See under Collections.
Vines. See under Decoration.
Volker T., lln., 25n., 136n.
Waley, Arthur, 84n.
Walhs, Henry, 89n.
Walters Art Gallery, 52n., 57, 139n.; pi. 6.
Walters Collection, Catalogue of, 27n.
Wan-fu-yu-t'ung, 57, 161.
Wang Tso, 39n.
Wang Tsung-mu, 31.
Wan-li, 17, 23, 32, 87, 103, 113, 121, 125, 128,
132n., 135n., 136, 141, 142, 150, 151; pis. 79,
83-87.
Wan-li marks. See under Marks.
Warner, Langdon, 119.
Wash, graded, 96, 108, 131.
Wash with outline, 85, 98, 102-104, 108-115;
pi. 56.
194
CHINESE PORCELAINS FROM THE ARDEBIL SHRINE
Waterchestnut, pis. 9, 11, 55.
WaterfaU, 129, 130;pl. 91.
Water fern, pis. 9, 11.
Waterfowl, 132; pi. 97.
Watermelon. See Melon under Decoration.
Water pipe, 100. See also Kendi.
Water plants. See Aquatic plants under Decora-
tion.
Water routes. See Maritime routes.
Waves. See under Decoration.
Wei Ching-yu, 28n.
Wells, Mr. and Mrs. Charlemagne Edward, xii.
Wenley, Archibald G., xiii, 126n.
West Asian metalwork, 64. See also Islamic met-
alwork.
White-on-blue style, 65, 67, 68, 70.
White Sheep Dynasty, 4.
White wares, 49, 143-147; pis. 110-115.
Wiet, Gaston, 54n.
Wiles, Bertha Harris, 135n.
Willow, 76, 130.
Windsor Castle, 52n.
Wine vessels, 10, 11.
gold, lacquer, pewter, porcelain, silver, wood,
37.
Winged dragons, 110, 119; pi. 70.
Winkworth, W. W., xiii.
Wreaths. See under Decoration.
Wu Lai-hsi, SOn., 114n.
Xavier, Father Francis, 135n.
Yamani cameUan, 10.
Yang-chou, 19.
Yashb, 10.
Yellow wares, 151.
YeUowish paste, 105; pis. 49, 58-60, 62.
Ying-ch'ing, 43. See also Ch'ing-pai.
Yin-Yang, pi. 55.
Yuan Dynasty, 39, 41-44, 61, 63, 66, 72-77,
136n., 153, 154, 158.
Yiian history, 73, 77.
Yiian money, 73, 74, 77.
Yuan Shih, 73n.
Yuan-yu-nien-tsao, 154.
Yueh ware, 61, 153, 158.
Yiieh p'ing, 86.
Yule, Sir Henry, 72n.
Yung-cheng, 92.
Yung-lo, 23, 24, 34n., 78, 84, 97, 105.
Yung-lo-ta-tien, 43n.
Zahid of GUan, Sheikh, 3.
Zanzibar, 24.
"Zerfkhanah," 14.
Zimmerman, Ernst, 80n., 94n., 145n., 153, 156n.,
157n.
Zinjan, 8.
Zuruf, 10.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11